Health bill will hold down costs for 20 years... What's the new excuse?

[shadow9d9]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – Congressional budget crunchers said Thurday the Democrats' latest health care plan would hold down federal red ink for at least 20 years, an assessment that gave supporters hope as the Senate moved gingerly toward a historic debate.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that Majority Leader Harry Reid's 10-year, $848-billion bill would produce a net reduction of $130 billion in federal deficits in its first decade. Perhaps more significantly, the legislation would continue to give back over the next 10 years and beyond, the budget umpires said, because "added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater" than the cost of covering uninsured Americans.





So, they allow a public option, deny the ability to use pre-existing conditions, and will cut costs over 20 years according to CBO... It will also cost less than expect at 850 billion over 10 years.. which is 85 billion a year... which is 1/10 of our empire building budget.

What will the next talking point be, now that "it doesn't reduce costs" is out of the equation?

 

[bfdd]

How come yesterday it was going to cost more now they are saying it will cost less? 13 billion a year is a small drop in the bucket compared to our GDP.

 

[Darwin333]

Its a shitty bill? Hell, even the left hates the bill but they go along with it because they think it could eventually lead to something they do like.

Disclaimer: I am assuming its more or less in line with the bill that Congress passed. I haven't, nor do I intend to, read the monstrosity full of legalese. I guess that qualifies me to be a Congressman

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

If these "cost savings" mentioned would really work, the insurance companies would have already gotten them, and kept them for themselves.

 

[shira]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – Congressional budget crunchers said Thurday the Democrats' latest health care plan would hold down federal red ink for at least 20 years, an assessment that gave supporters hope as the Senate moved gingerly toward a historic debate.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that Majority Leader Harry Reid's 10-year, $848-billion bill would produce a net reduction of $130 billion in federal deficits in its first decade. Perhaps more significantly, the legislation would continue to give back over the next 10 years and beyond, the budget umpires said, because "added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater" than the cost of covering uninsured Americans.





So, they allow a public option, deny the ability to use pre-existing conditions, and will cut costs over 20 years according to CBO... It will also cost less than expect at 850 billion over 10 years.. which is 85 billion a year... which is 1/10 of our empire building budget.

What will the next talking point be, now that "it doesn't reduce costs" is out of the equation?

But, but, but . . . It's the greatest threat to liberty since Hitler. It's going to turn the old and the sick into green, edible wafers. And it doesn't do a thing about global warming.

 

[Darwin333]

How come yesterday it was going to cost more now they are saying it will cost less? 13 billion a year is a small drop in the bucket compared to our GDP.

Even 85B is pretty small if it actually does some good while not fucking other things up. Then again, we can't afford our current expenditures for another 20 years but as long as whoever sends the bill takes a credit card, who cares? I'd hate to be the poor bastards extending the credit when we tell em that we aren't paying them back but at this point its their own dumbass fault for making the loan in the first place, so fuck em.

 

[JSt0rm]

noooess the pr0fits! amerika iz do0med.

 

[bfdd]

Soylent Green eh? Maybe we could stop all the starvation around the world with this new legislation.

 

[shira]

How come yesterday it was going to cost more now they are saying it will cost less? 13 billion a year is a small drop in the bucket compared to our GDP.

Careful how you organize those talking points. The CBO earlier estimated that tort reform would save 5 billion a year, and the right is telling us that THAT change is the answer to our prayers.

 

[cubeless]

But, but, but . . . It's the greatest threat to liberty since Hitler. It's going to turn the old and the sick into green, edible wafers. And it doesn't do a thing about global warming.

it hurts global warming because if all those millions who die because they aren't covered or get denied keep living they will increase co2 emissions...

 

[shadow9d9]

noooess the pr0fits! amerika iz do0med.

If the profits are due to denying coverage, denying people insurance, and excluding people from pre-existing conditions.. then it is evil...

Potter, who spent 15 years at CIGNA, said health plans have a financial incentive to cancel the policies of their most costly members and have implemented strategies to do so. “They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy,” he testified. And canceling policies for even a small number of such members can have “a big effect” on the bottom line, he added. “Where is the logic and the humanity of having pre-existing conditions not covered in our society?” Potter asked. He noted that his testimony wasn’t aimed at CIGNA specifically, but rather at an industry that he said is “taking this country in the wrong direction.”

http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd070909.html

""They confuse their customers and dump the sick — all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," said Wendell Potter, who retired as CIGNA's vice president of corporate communications last year. He spent nearly 15 years at the company and four years at Humana."

"Potter, for instance, recalled a trip on a corporate jet from Philadelphia, where CIGNA is headquartered, to Connecticut, where the company's health insurance business is based in Bloomfield. During the flight, he was served lunch on gold-rimmed china with a gold-plated knife and fork.

"I realized for the first time that someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to travel in such luxury," he said on his blog."

"He condemned insurers' efforts to get rid of unprofitable customers, sell policies that can mislead consumers and offer very limited coverage, and pay out as small a portion of premiums as possible for claims in order to boost profits and please Wall Street."

"Potter described in written testimony how insurers use "purging" — unrealistic rate increases — to drive off less profitable employers. Citing a USA Today report, he recalled how CIGNA boosted rates in 2006 for the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust so much that for some family plans, premiums would have topped $44,000 a year."

"CIGNA, responding to Potter's testimony, said Wednesday, "Although we respect that there are different opinions on the solutions, we strongly disagree with the suggestion that, motivated by profits, the insurance industry has deliberately attempted to confuse or unfairly treat covered individuals.""

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-cigna-potter.artjun25,0,4107201.story


"Among the other testimony heard by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation was that of Robin Beaton. It reflected some of the insurance company tactics condemned by Potter.

It was a nightmare scenario. The day before she was scheduled to undergo a double mastectomy for invasive breast cancer, Robin Beaton's health insurance company informed her that she was "red flagged" and they wouldn't pay for her surgery. The hospital wanted a $30,000 deposit before they would move forward. Beaton had no choice but to forgo the life-saving surgery.

Beaton had dutifully signed up for individual insurance when she retired from nursing to start a small business. She had never missed a payment, but that didn't matter. Blue Cross cited two earlier, unrelated conditions that she hadn't reported to them when signing up — acne and a fast beating heart — and rescinded her policy.

Beaton pleaded with the company and had her doctors write letters on her behalf to no avail. It was not until Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) personally called Blue Cross that her policy was reinstated and she could undergo surgery. In that year, Beaton's tumor doubled in size, leading to further complications necessitating the removal of her lymph glands as well."


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html

 

[JSt0rm]

Soylent Green eh? Maybe we could stop all the starvation around the world with this new legislation.

our economy is based on scarcity. We need to let some people starve to insure that our economy as we know it doesn't grind to a halt. Imagine what unlimited free clean power would do? Money would be destroyed!111!!1

 

[Atreus21]

Reid's bill relies on cuts in future Medicare spending to cover costs, as well as higher payroll taxes for the well-off, a new levy on patients undergoing elective cosmetic surgery, and a laundry list of other taxes, fees and penalties.

The Democratic leader wrote the legislation with White House aides during weeks of secretive negotiations, selecting elements from two committee-passed bills with the aim of securing the necessary 60 votes in a Senate debate that will be decisive for Obama's health care agenda.

The mammoth, 2,074-page bill would, for the the first time, require most Americans to carry health insurance.

I think I still oppose it, thanks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think I still oppose it, thanks.

Since no one will cut Medicaid, I'm interested on how Reid will cut Medicare when there will be many more on it quite soon. Those who need it most will be SOL.

Smoke'N'Mirrors strikes again.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Since no one will cut Medicaid, I'm interested on how Reid will cut Medicare when there will be many more on it quite soon. Those who need it most will be SOL.

Smoke'N'Mirrors strikes again.

Democrat's new plan: don't get sick.

 

[boomerang]

I truly wish I could just go through life fat dumb and happy. It's got to be far easier to just accept everything the government says and question nothing.

 

[bfdd]

Careful how you organize those talking points. The CBO earlier estimated that tort reform would save 5 billion a year, and the right is telling us that THAT change is the answer to our prayers.

Very true, imo Judges should just not allow people to sue for ungodly amounts of money.

our economy is based on scarcity. We need to let some people starve to insure that our economy as we know it doesn't grind to a halt. Imagine what unlimited free clean power would do? Money would be destroyed!111!!1

Well we can't have that, I like money.

 

[Fern]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Health bill will hold down costs for 20 years... What's the new excuse?

WASHINGTON – Congressional budget crunchers said Thurday the Democrats' latest health care plan would hold down federal red ink for at least 20 years, an assessment that gave supporters hope as the Senate moved gingerly toward a historic debate.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that Majority Leader Harry Reid's 10-year, $848-billion bill would produce a net reduction of $130 billion in federal deficits in its first decade. Perhaps more significantly, the legislation would continue to give back over the next 10 years and beyond, the budget umpires said, because "added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater" than the cost of covering uninsured Americans.





So, they allow a public option, deny the ability to use pre-existing conditions, and will cut costs over 20 years according to CBO... It will also cost less than expect at 850 billion over 10 years.. which is 85 billion a year... which is 1/10 of our empire building budget.

What will the next talking point be, now that "it doesn't reduce costs" is out of the equation?

Wow!

Bravo!

You get a 10/10 for either having completely misunderstood the article you link, or being purposefully misleading.

There isn't a G@d D@mn thing in this article about "reducing costs", you boob. It's about not increasing the federal deficit. If you think those two completely seperate things are one-in-the-same you're dumber than a fence post. I rarely get angry here, nor hardly ever post insults, but this too damn much.

This is nothing but cost shifting, and it's us who's bearing the cost you dimwit. Our "red ink" is going up, not the government's:

Reid's bill relies on cuts in future Medicare spending to cover costs, as well as higher payroll taxes for the well-off, a new levy on patients undergoing elective cosmetic surgery, and a laundry list of other taxes, fees and penalties.

JFC!

Fern

 

[her209]

Very true, imo Judges should just not allow people to sue for ungodly amounts of money.

Communist

 

[shadow9d9]

Wow!

Bravo!

You get a 10/10 for either having completely misunderstood the article you link, or being purposefully misleading.

There isn't a G@d D@mn thing in this article about "reducing costs", you boob. It's about not increasing the federal deficit. If you think those two completely seperate things are one-in-the-same you're dumber than a fence post. I rarely get angry here, nor hardly ever post insults, but this too damn much.

This is nothing but cost shifting, and it's us who's bearing the cost you dimwit. Our "red ink" is going up, not the government's:



JFC!

Fern

We already bear the cost, except without the coverage to show for it.

The bill came in at 850, down from 1.2 trillion from the house bill...which over ten years is only 85 billion a year, which is nothing for federal spending if you consider we just spent 800+ billion on ONE year's military spending.

Additionally, "net reduction of $130 billion in federal deficits in its first decade. Perhaps more significantly, the legislation would continue to give back over the next 10 years and beyond."

The whole argument that Republicans have been using is that it will bankrupt the country.... this article(CBO) proves quite the opposite.

Millions more covered, no one denied pre-existing conditions, and a new competing government plan, and for quite a low price...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Since no one will cut Medicaid, I'm interested on how Reid will cut Medicare when there will be many more on it quite soon. Those who need it most will be SOL.

Smoke'N'Mirrors strikes again.

Shhh.... you aren't supposed to think about the claims, you are just supposed to have faith in the gov't that the reductions will happen.

 

[xj0hnx]

Shhh.... you aren't supposed to think about the claims, you are just supposed to have faith in the gov't that the reductions will happen.

But dude, this new report says so, even though a week ago it wouldn't, just wait till next week and the bill will be turning record profits, but wait, if it turns record profits, would the "eat the rich" left then hate the government and it's profiteering expansion? Go Reid, Go Reid, Go Reid....

 

[Genx87]

Since no one will cut Medicaid, I'm interested on how Reid will cut Medicare when there will be many more on it quite soon. Those who need it most will be SOL.

Smoke'N'Mirrors strikes again.

Somebody would have to be damn stupid to believe Medicare is going to really get cut. And where is the outrage from AARP over democrats plans to cut this entitlement? They went apeshit over SS reform that wouldnt have touched their members.

 

[Ausm]

Say no to a government takeover of our already fucked up healthcare system!!

 

[her209]

Somebody would have to be damn stupid to believe Medicare is going to really get cut. And where is the outrage from AARP over democrats plans to cut this entitlement? They went apeshit over SS reform that wouldnt have touched their members.

They endorsed the House bill.
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/health_care_reform7.html