CBO: Senate Finance Health Plan Trims Deficit By $81B

[b0mbrman]

It's a WSJ article so it may expire before this thread does...

CBO: Senate Finance Health Plan Trims Deficit By $81B[/b] - A health overhaul proposal from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., got a boost Wednesday from the Congressional Budget Office, which said the bill wouldn't add to the deficit through 2019 and probably would continue to raise more money for the government than it costs after that time.

The widely awaited preliminary estimate from CBO found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion through 2019.

CBO said the gross cost of the bill comes to $829 billion over that time. That includes the cost of subsidies for the uninsured to purchase health coverage, increased spending on Medicaid and children's health programs, and tax credits for small businesses.

That cost is offset by revenues from a excise tax on high-cost insurance plans and savings from cuts in government payments to health providers, among other sources.

Three key points:
* Doesn't add to federal deficit
* Less than $900 billion over ten years
* 94% of Americans would be covered

Obviously, loads of uncertainty when you go out to ten years, but there y'are...CBO scoring...



I predict that it sails through committee and sees the floor before the end of the month

[Note] Click link, then click first search result

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
It's a WSJ article so it may expire before this thread does...

CBO: Senate Finance Health Plan Trims Deficit By $81B[/b] - A health overhaul proposal from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., got a boost Wednesday from the Congressional Budget Office, which said the bill wouldn't add to the deficit through 2019 and probably would continue to raise more money for the government than it costs after that time.

The widely awaited preliminary estimate from CBO found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion through 2019.

CBO said the gross cost of the bill comes to $829 billion over that time. That includes the cost of subsidies for the uninsured to purchase health coverage, increased spending on Medicaid and children's health programs, and tax credits for small businesses.

That cost is offset by revenues from a excise tax on high-cost insurance plans and savings from cuts in government payments to health providers, among other sources.

Three key points:
* Doesn't add to federal deficit
* Less than $900 billion over ten years
* 94% of Americans would be covered

Obviously, loads of uncertainty when you go out to ten years, but there y'are...CBO scoring...



I predict that it sails through committee and sees the floor before the end of the month

Better than the original crappy bill. We need more moderates in our government.

 

[Ausm]

I wish the CBO would have used to figure out how much money we would have wasted in Iraq.


-------------------------------
Trolling does not become you in this thread.

Please try again on Friday

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[Fern]

WTH?

This is nothing but cost-shifting.

That cost is offset by revenues from a excise tax on high-cost insurance plans and savings from cuts in government payments to health providers, among other sources.

The gross cost is $829 billion. Looks like an $829B drag on the economy via increased income taxes and shifting of medical costs from gov programs to private insurers and those who pay out-of-pocket (as in these subsidize medicaid/medicare because Medicaid/Medicare only pay a portion of the costs).

I don't see any overall net cost reduction in HC. This looks like a 'back-door' tax increase, that's all.

Now how is this good?

Fern

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Ausm
I wish the CBO would have used to figure out how much money we would have wasted in Iraq.

Can you guys NOT bring up Iraq in a thread?

 

[sciwizam]

Going from Google News, gives access to the full article, while the link above shows a truncated version. Here's the rest..

"This legislation is a smart investment on the federal balance sheet, and it's an even smarter investment for American families, businesses and our economy," Baucus said in a statement.

The CBO estimate means Baucus' bill meets two goals set forth by President Barack Obama. It doesn't add to the deficit, and the total cost of its provisions to expand care came in under $900 billion over 10 years.

The analysis helps Baucus as he tries to win approval for the bill in the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, possibly by the end of this week.

The bill would leave 25 million Americans uninsured - fully 6% of the population, excluding illegal immigrants, according to CBO. But it would result in coverage for 29 million who currently do not have insurance, CBO said.

The $829 billion cost of subsidies in the bill was up from a $774 billion, 10-year estimate delivered by CBO on Sept. 16, before Finance Committee members voted to boost subsidies to lower and middle-income Americans, among other changes.

CBO projected that the revenues from the insurance excise tax and other sources will grow more quickly from 2020-2029 than the parts of the bill that cost the government - amounting to a net reduction in the federal deficit. But the CBO cautioned its projection is "subject to substantial uncertainty."

So we are covering about 53.7% of the uninsured for $900 Billion, what about the rest of them? So, another $900 Billion reform bill next year to take care of the rest?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Fern
WTH?

This is nothing but cost-shifting.

That cost is offset by revenues from a excise tax on high-cost insurance plans and savings from cuts in government payments to health providers, among other sources.

The gross cost is $829 billion. Looks like an $829B drag on the economy via increased income taxes and shifting of medical costs from gov programs to private insurers and those who pay out-of-pocket (as in these subsidize medicaid/medicare because Medicaid/Medicare only pay a portion of the costs).

I don't see any overall net cost reduction in HC. This looks like a 'back-door' tax increase, that's all.

Now how is this good?

Fern

Because now the politicians can go peddling this as cost savings vs cost $1 trillion.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Three key points:
* Doesn't add to federal deficit
* Less than $900 billion over ten years
* 94% of Americans would be covered

I would amend that point to say 53.7% of the uninsured would be covered, as going by the math provided in the article(25+29=54 million uninsured, which is quite high in itself) 84% of the population is already are being covered.

 

[Patranus]

New taxes on the middle class. Oh wait, they are 'fees' not new taxes. I have to get my terminology correct. with the goal of generating 120 billion. How much more are you going to have to pay?

Leaves 20 million uninsured.

Cuts 500 (assumption) billion from seniors. Not going to happen.

And did you see how much it costs after 10 years? Your mind will be blown.

Does not have legislative language and the CBO says things WILL CHANGE.

1.4 trillion dollar deficit?

Not going to happen.

What happens when the Democrats don't get their medicare cuts? Try telling the largest voting block you are taking something away THEY PAID INTO.

Can you say GOP in 2010 and 2012 with this being repealed?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Going from Google News, gives access to the full article, while the link above shows a truncated version. Here's the rest..

"This legislation is a smart investment on the federal balance sheet, and it's an even smarter investment for American families, businesses and our economy," Baucus said in a statement.

The CBO estimate means Baucus' bill meets two goals set forth by President Barack Obama. It doesn't add to the deficit, and the total cost of its provisions to expand care came in under $900 billion over 10 years.
-snip-

OK, I see how it meets Obama's goals (doesn't add to the deficit because the costs are shifted to us, and costs less than $900B).

But how the h3ll can baucus say this is a "good investment"? An investment is suppose to return profits, earn a rate-of-return. This is not an invetsment, there is no "profit" or RoR. There is just increased cost, or rather the supposidly $900B borne by the American population due to these 29B uninsured folks is now being shifted in another manner (now young healthy people paying in via unwanted/unneedeed HI, increased income taxes and additional shifting of HC costs to private insurers because of government discounts). Cost shifting is not an "investment", and by no means a "smart investment' by any stretch. If cost shifting were an investment we could all get rich by taking money out of our left pocket and shifting it to our right pocket.

Our Pols in Washington would make a used car salesman blush.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Patranus
New taxes on the middle class. Oh wait, they are 'fees' not new taxes. I have to get my terminology correct. with the goal of generating 120 billion. How much more are you going to have to pay?

Leaves 20 million uninsured.

Cuts 500 (assumption) billion from seniors. Not going to happen.

And did you see how much it costs after 10 years? Your mind will be blown.

Does not have legislative language and the CBO says things WILL CHANGE.

1.4 trillion dollar deficit?

Not going to happen.

This plan should of been single payer healthcare. Then costs would of been kept in line. Trying to appease the insurance companies has done nothing for the real problem. It's sad.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Patranus
New taxes on the middle class. Oh wait, they are 'fees' not new taxes. I have to get my terminology correct. with the goal of generating 120 billion. How much more are you going to have to pay?

Leaves 20 million uninsured.

Cuts 500 (assumption) billion from seniors. Not going to happen.

And did you see how much it costs after 10 years? Your mind will be blown.

Does not have legislative language and the CBO says things WILL CHANGE.

1.4 trillion dollar deficit?

Not going to happen.

This plan should of been single payer healthcare. Then costs would of been kept in line. Trying to appease the insurance companies has done nothing for the real problem. It's sad.

Where has anybody demonstrated persuasively that a gov single payer system would reduce HC costs?

By eliminating private HI companies and thereby saving money, are you saying that it's not the underlying HC costs which are too high, but merely the cost of insurance? I.e., w/o insurance there is nothing wrong with HC costs themselves?

I've not seen anything that indicates that's the case.

As far as costs, every time someone suggests some particular cost is too high and s/b reduced, whether it be doctors salaries, lawsuits and malpractice insurance or HI companies' profits, someone else comes around posting links saying those are so small as to not be worth bothering with. FFS, no one seems to know WHAT the problem really is (This is not directed at you, but my own observation and an expression of my frustration with this whole topic).

I have the sense that Washinton has a 'solution', but are searching for a problem to justify it with. (Along these lines see my sig)

Fern

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Patranus
New taxes on the middle class. Oh wait, they are 'fees' not new taxes. I have to get my terminology correct. with the goal of generating 120 billion. How much more are you going to have to pay?

Leaves 20 million uninsured.

Cuts 500 (assumption) billion from seniors. Not going to happen.

And did you see how much it costs after 10 years? Your mind will be blown.

Does not have legislative language and the CBO says things WILL CHANGE.

1.4 trillion dollar deficit?

Not going to happen.

This plan should of been single payer healthcare. Then costs would of been kept in line. Trying to appease the insurance companies has done nothing for the real problem. It's sad.

Where has anybody demonstrated persuasively that a gov single payer system would reduce HC costs?

By eliminating private HI companies and thereby saving money, are you saying that it's not the underlying HC costs which are too high, but merely the cost of insurance? I.e., w/o insurance there is nothing wrong with HC costs themselves?

I've not seen anything that indicates that's the case.

As far as costs, every time someone suggests some particular cost is too high and s/b reduced, whether it be doctors salaries, lawsuits and malpractice insurance or HI companies' profits, someone else comes around posting links saying those are so small as to not be worth bothering with. FFS, no one seems to know WHAT the problem really is (This is not directed at you, but my own observation and an expression of my frustration with this whole topic).

I have the sense that Washinton has a 'solution', but are searching for a problem to justify it with. (Along these lines see my sig)

Fern

I have no dog in this fight, but it looks like we'll get to see (a CBO score at least): http://voices.washingtonpost.c...ring_single-payer.html

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Patranus
New taxes on the middle class. Oh wait, they are 'fees' not new taxes. I have to get my terminology correct. with the goal of generating 120 billion. How much more are you going to have to pay?

Leaves 20 million uninsured.

Cuts 500 (assumption) billion from seniors. Not going to happen.

And did you see how much it costs after 10 years? Your mind will be blown.

Does not have legislative language and the CBO says things WILL CHANGE.

1.4 trillion dollar deficit?

Not going to happen.

This plan should of been single payer healthcare. Then costs would of been kept in line. Trying to appease the insurance companies has done nothing for the real problem. It's sad.

Where has anybody demonstrated persuasively that a gov single payer system would reduce HC costs?

By eliminating private HI companies and thereby saving money, are you saying that it's not the underlying HC costs which are too high, but merely the cost of insurance? I.e., w/o insurance there is nothing wrong with HC costs themselves?

I've not seen anything that indicates that's the case.

As far as costs, every time someone suggests some particular cost is too high and s/b reduced, whether it be doctors salaries, lawsuits and malpractice insurance or HI companies' profits, someone else comes around posting links saying those are so small as to not be worth bothering with. FFS, no one seems to know WHAT the problem really is (This is not directed at you, but my own observation and an expression of my frustration with this whole topic).

I have the sense that Washinton has a 'solution', but are searching for a problem to justify it with. (Along these lines see my sig)

Fern

The problem is the amount of diseases, and issues we seem to have now... The problem is the fact that we have learned WAYYYY more about ourselves and our diseases in the past 20 years, than we have at any other point in time... The problem is that we now live longer than we have in the past... The problem is that we have a HUGE boom going on in the amount of older adults because of the Baby Boomers... The problem is the amount of people...

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Patranus
New taxes on the middle class. Oh wait, they are 'fees' not new taxes. I have to get my terminology correct. with the goal of generating 120 billion. How much more are you going to have to pay?

Leaves 20 million uninsured.

Cuts 500 (assumption) billion from seniors. Not going to happen.

And did you see how much it costs after 10 years? Your mind will be blown.

Does not have legislative language and the CBO says things WILL CHANGE.

1.4 trillion dollar deficit?

Not going to happen.

This plan should of been single payer healthcare. Then costs would of been kept in line. Trying to appease the insurance companies has done nothing for the real problem. It's sad.

Where has anybody demonstrated persuasively that a gov single payer system would reduce HC costs?

By eliminating private HI companies and thereby saving money, are you saying that it's not the underlying HC costs which are too high, but merely the cost of insurance? I.e., w/o insurance there is nothing wrong with HC costs themselves?

I've not seen anything that indicates that's the case.

As far as costs, every time someone suggests some particular cost is too high and s/b reduced, whether it be doctors salaries, lawsuits and malpractice insurance or HI companies' profits, someone else comes around posting links saying those are so small as to not be worth bothering with. FFS, no one seems to know WHAT the problem really is (This is not directed at you, but my own observation and an expression of my frustration with this whole topic).

I have the sense that Washinton has a 'solution', but are searching for a problem to justify it with. (Along these lines see my sig)

Fern

The problem is the amount of diseases, and issues we seem to have now... The problem is the fact that we have learned WAYYYY more about ourselves and our diseases in the past 20 years, than we have at any other point in time... The problem is that we now live longer than we have in the past... The problem is that we have a HUGE boom going on in the amount of older adults because of the Baby Boomers... The problem is the amount of people who don't take care of themselves...

when 66% of america is classified as overweight or obese, and ~33+% as obese, of course your healthcare costs will be through the roof. part of reducing healthcare costs will simply be through living a healthier lifestyle. obviously there are things that people can't predict, avoid, or have genetic predispositions to.. but otherwise, i thing healthier eating habits and lifestyles would do a whole lot to bringing down our healthcare costs.

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/#whydodiffer

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Ausm
I wish the CBO would have used to figure out how much money we would have wasted in Iraq.

Can you guys NOT bring up Iraq in a thread?

If Ausm was capable of original thought he wouldn't have smoked for 20 years. He just does what others tell him to do.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Going from Google News, gives access to the full article, while the link above shows a truncated version. Here's the rest..

"This legislation is a smart investment on the federal balance sheet, and it's an even smarter investment for American families, businesses and our economy," Baucus said in a statement.

The CBO estimate means Baucus' bill meets two goals set forth by President Barack Obama. It doesn't add to the deficit, and the total cost of its provisions to expand care came in under $900 billion over 10 years.

The analysis helps Baucus as he tries to win approval for the bill in the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, possibly by the end of this week.

The bill would leave 25 million Americans uninsured - fully 6% of the population, excluding illegal immigrants, according to CBO. But it would result in coverage for 29 million who currently do not have insurance, CBO said.

The $829 billion cost of subsidies in the bill was up from a $774 billion, 10-year estimate delivered by CBO on Sept. 16, before Finance Committee members voted to boost subsidies to lower and middle-income Americans, among other changes.

CBO projected that the revenues from the insurance excise tax and other sources will grow more quickly from 2020-2029 than the parts of the bill that cost the government - amounting to a net reduction in the federal deficit. But the CBO cautioned its projection is "subject to substantial uncertainty."

So we are covering about 53.7% of the uninsured for $900 Billion, what about the rest of them? So, another $900 Billion reform bill next year to take care of the rest?

If it makes you feel better, about those left uninsured

(about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Going from Google News, gives access to the full article, while the link above shows a truncated version. Here's the rest..

"This legislation is a smart investment on the federal balance sheet, and it's an even smarter investment for American families, businesses and our economy," Baucus said in a statement.

The CBO estimate means Baucus' bill meets two goals set forth by President Barack Obama. It doesn't add to the deficit, and the total cost of its provisions to expand care came in under $900 billion over 10 years.

The analysis helps Baucus as he tries to win approval for the bill in the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, possibly by the end of this week.

The bill would leave 25 million Americans uninsured - fully 6% of the population, excluding illegal immigrants, according to CBO. But it would result in coverage for 29 million who currently do not have insurance, CBO said.

The $829 billion cost of subsidies in the bill was up from a $774 billion, 10-year estimate delivered by CBO on Sept. 16, before Finance Committee members voted to boost subsidies to lower and middle-income Americans, among other changes.

CBO projected that the revenues from the insurance excise tax and other sources will grow more quickly from 2020-2029 than the parts of the bill that cost the government - amounting to a net reduction in the federal deficit. But the CBO cautioned its projection is "subject to substantial uncertainty."

So we are covering about 53.7% of the uninsured for $900 Billion, what about the rest of them? So, another $900 Billion reform bill next year to take care of the rest?

Might as well just write everyone without insurance a check for 3600 and be done with it.

 

[Balt]

Meh, looks like it just shifts costs without doing anything to actually curb the overall expense of insurance or medical care. Underwhelmed.

 

[bamacre]

The widely awaited preliminary estimate from CBO found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion through 2019.

That's not enough, not anywhere near enough. We needed to drastically cut the cost of health care, not just for consumers, but definitely for government. Medicare is a time bomb.

 

[Double Trouble]

Simple cost shifting. I have yet to see any legislative proposal that actually tackles the underlying problems. Everything I see is about cost shifting, playing shell games with who's paying for what and how, nothing about reducing the actual costs.

There is surely no one single simple answer, but there are probably a number of things that could be done to take on things that drive up the overall cost of healthcare. Each one (like for example tort reform, increasing the number of GP's etc) might only hit a small part of the overall health care cost puzzle, but together it would be a good thing.... Yet we see none of that. Instead, we get a massive bill that "overhauls" the system by shifting costs around and increasing the size and scope of government.

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
when 66% of america is classified as overweight or obese, and ~33+% as obese, of course your healthcare costs will be through the roof. part of reducing healthcare costs will simply be through living a healthier lifestyle. obviously there are things that people can't predict, avoid, or have genetic predispositions to.. but otherwise, i thing healthier eating habits and lifestyles would do a whole lot to bringing down our healthcare costs.

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/#whydodiffer

Ok, that makes sense. So, which one of the legislative proposals has anything in it on how to handle this problem? Or smokers? Or any other risky behavior or life choices?

 

[dmcowen674]

Republicans and their supporters lie

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Politicians and their supporters lie

Fixed

 

[LTC8K6]

The bill has not even been written yet...

 

[0marTheZealot]

We need major reform, on the level the Swiss (Swedes?) or Taiwainese did in the '80s and '90s. Otherwise, we are just moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

The biggest problem is that we can't have a sensible debate without idiots spreading massive disinformation. There's just a whole bunch of fucktards ruining the health care reform for everyone. Honestly, the Democrats need to push something throw that is major. Quit trying to buy bipartisan support. The republicans right now would cut off their nose to spite their face. Fuck them. Shove a huge reform down their throats. Everyone will be much off with a clear HC reform bill than something muddied by bipartisanship.