Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._go_pr_wh/obama_budget



WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform ? a little more than half what it may ultimately cost to provide every American with medical coverage. The budget also proposes a mix of tax cuts for the middle class and tax increases for upper-income households. That includes extending beyond 2010 the $400 annual tax cut in the stimulus plan just signed into law.

The disclosures came from two administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget won't be made public until Thursday.

Obama claims his plan can reduce the extraordinary $1.5 trillion deficit this year to $533 billion in 2013 ? an uncertain goal given the turbulent economy.

The health care provisions are meant to start a dialogue with Congress over how to provide coverage for an estimated 48 million uninsured while also slowing health care costs, which amount to $2.4 trillion a year and keep rising even as the economy is shrinking.

Independent experts say providing coverage for all could easily cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years, a figure the Obama administration does not dispute. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, are concerned about that cost.

Budget documents provided to The Associated Press show that Obama will not lay out a detailed blueprint for a health care overhaul, but rather a set of broad policy principles and some specific ideas for how to raise a big chunk of the money.

Whatever Congress does, the documents said, "must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans." Obama has called on Congress to send him a health care reform bill this year.

Obama's principles include guaranteeing people a choice of insurance plans and doctors and continuing employer-based coverage. He also says Americans should be able to take their health care benefits with them when they change jobs.

The $634 billion would be on top of recent health care expansions approved by Congress and also described by the administration as down payments toward overhauling health care. Those include $32 billion to expand coverage for the children of low-income workers and $19 billion to speed the adoption of computerized health records.

Apart from health care, the budget will extend Obama's signature $400 tax cut for workers, and $800 for married couples.

The budget also calls for an increase in the top income tax rate, from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for married couples with incomes above $250,000 a year, said another administration official.

The biggest tax adjustment, however, would come from updating the alternative minimum tax for inflation. That would add $150 billion to the deficit by 2013. The AMT was originally designed to make sure the wealthy paid at least some taxes, but it threatens to ensnare some 24 million middle- to upper-income taxpayers next year.

The budget would also freeze the estate tax at current levels rather than allowing it to permanently expire next year.

Even before the budget arrives on Capitol Hill, senior lawmakers from both parties are saying they are concerned about the cost of health care reform.

Almost no one believes that Americans are getting good value for their health care dollars. Some experts say 30 percent or more of what the nation spends may be going for tests and treatments of little or no lasting benefit. But bringing the uninsured into such a costly system won't be easy.

Against that backdrop, "it's very hard for me to understand why the answer is to put more money into the system," Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said at a hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, warned that Obama is walking "a razor's edge between a broken health care system and fiscal catastrophe."

But administration officials say overhauling the health care system to slow increases in costs and get everybody covered is essential to solving the nation's long-term budget problems. They argue that it may take a big investment up front to reap significant dividends over the long term.

The $634 billion Obama wants to set aside for health care would be almost evenly divided between spending reductions and tax increases.

Obama's plan would trim $316 billion over 10 years from Medicare. Some of the savings would come from scaling back payments to private insurance plans that serve older Americans, which many analysts believe to be inflated. Other proposals include charging upper-income beneficiaries a higher premium for Medicare's prescription drug coverage.

The health care proposal would also limit tax deductions for upper-income individuals and families, raising about $318 billion over 10 years. Married couples making more than $250,000 would get a limited deduction for charitable contributions, local taxes and other expenses. Rather than reaping close to 40 cents on the dollar, they would be limited to 28 cents.

Such proposals are deeply controversial, particularly with nonprofit institutions that depend on wealthy donors.



And the wheel keeps rolling. The best part is that this is only half the budgeted cost of Obamacare, and that healthcare costs always increase faster than politicians say they do because we insist on giving Cheney quality healthcare to those who don't merit it.

On top of that, we lose millions of jobs and kill charitable giving. Shouldn't be too long now before those $250k people make like a Marc Rich and leave.

Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. Obama?s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP)

Guess that went out the window! :laugh:
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Once the credit card is out, it is hard to put it away.


At least he isnt for universal health-care. We could have had Hillary. *shudder*
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
HEALTHCARE!?!

PORKULOUS!!!!

/s

I suppose that was a generous characterization. A planetarium buried somewhere in Chicago might be useful at least if I ever visit.

Health care for unproductives....well...
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Still the simple math seems to elude. I'd love somebody to explain how a finite resource opened up to more customers is going to give them all the same quality of care. Please, enlightened ones, explain how the same number of doctors offering care to more people will not dilute the quality of what's already in place.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
I love how the CNN article puts is:

OMB Director Peter Orszag told CNN on Tuesday that a massive overhaul of the health-care system can be achieved this year and that it should provide "universal coverage."

"We're going to try to avoid the mistakes of the past and not lay down a fully detailed plan, rather work constructively with Congress," he added.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyone believe that number? especially in light of it only being a "down-payment" on the idea of socialized healthcare.
Yeah I believe it. It's just not all of it :) Not even close.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
IMO, what we really need is EXTREME litigation reform in this country, especially as it applies to health care.

I bet the exponential growth in health care premiums mirrors that of the amount of litigation insurance required.

How about...

1) A lawsuit cannot go before a judge/real jury until it passes unanimously from a "pre-jury" of twelve, randomly selected citizen peers. A litmus test if you will to prevent blatant idiocy and lottery seekers.
2) Limit compensation to some amount, say $500K.
3) A doctor gets two strikes. After one lawsuit, s/he gets a warning. After the second, s/he loses her/his license.
4) A hospital gets 3 strikes per year. Three malpractice lawsuits a year is it. Otherwise, closed down.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

Obviously then we should not offer healthcare to every 65 year old, now, should we?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

"Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union)" - translated means: "thank god for dual cost shifting".


Yes, it's costing more because we try to make people hold on for that extra 2 weeks, months whatever when we should likely just let them go in peace. For what reason do we need to hold onto someone for an extra two weeks when it's medically clear they will not recover or will die withing a short timeframe no matter what is done. It's stupid but we've(collective) bought into the entitlement mentality and thus expect everyone else pay for that extra(worthless) time with the person that should be let go of.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
IMO, what we really need is EXTREME litigation reform in this country, especially as it applies to health care.

I bet the exponential growth in health care premiums mirrors that of the amount of litigation insurance required.

How about...

1) A lawsuit cannot go before a judge/real jury until it passes unanimously from a "pre-jury" of twelve, randomly selected citizen peers. A litmus test if you will to prevent blatant idiocy and lottery seekers.
2) Limit compensation to some amount, say $500K.
3) A doctor gets two strikes. After one lawsuit, s/he gets a warning. After the second, s/he loses her/his license.
4) A hospital gets 3 strikes per year. Three malpractice lawsuits a year is it. Otherwise, closed down.



True what you say. It was amazing that tort reform was never mentioned as campaign isuse last fall. Obama never gets to real causes of higher costs but runs right to the socialist option - that also includes money for illegals. This country is unsane.

Doctors Flock to Texas After Tort Reform
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/20...rt-reform/?mod=WSJBlog
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
So what was BHO's comment last night.... something about taking responsibility.... oh wait... that right...it's not about personal responsibility - it's about taking responsibility for everyone...
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

Obviously then we should not offer healthcare to every 65 year old, now, should we?
Well in your case 12 year olds.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

Obviously then we should not offer healthcare to every 65 year old, now, should we?
Health care costs are through the roof, particularly keeping old people chugging along, but the US cannot very well have a cut off point saying hey you're 65 this surgery costs more than 10k, too bad.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So what was BHO's comment last night.... something about taking responsibility.... oh wait... that right...it's not about personal responsibility - it's about taking responsibility for everyone...

Spoken like someone who has never had to decide between health care or food.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Still the simple math seems to elude. I'd love somebody to explain how a finite resource opened up to more customers is going to give them all the same quality of care. Please, enlightened ones, explain how the same number of doctors offering care to more people will not dilute the quality of what's already in place.

this is the exact problem. they should use that money to build new medical schools and pay people to become doctors. the price will take care of itself as we flood the market with doctors. and instead of these greedy leechy fuckers playing golf half the week while pulling in $250k reading xrays, they will be on par with the rest of us professionals.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So what was BHO's comment last night.... something about taking responsibility.... oh wait... that right...it's not about personal responsibility - it's about taking responsibility for everyone...

Spoken like someone who has never had to decide between health care or food.

It is not my job as a taxpayer to make sure everyone eats and has healthcare.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,172
14,602
146
Obama can pay for at least a good portion of this by simply taxing the medical benefits people get through their jobs...or by eliminating employee medical benefits as a taxable deduction for companies.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

Obviously then we should not offer healthcare to every 65 year old, now, should we?
Health care costs are through the roof, particularly keeping old people chugging along, but the US cannot very well have a cut off point saying hey you're 65 this surgery costs more than 10k, too bad.

They do that in Europe.

 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So what was BHO's comment last night.... something about taking responsibility.... oh wait... that right...it's not about personal responsibility - it's about taking responsibility for everyone...

Spoken like someone who has never had to decide between health care or food.

It is not my job as a taxpayer to make sure everyone eats and has healthcare.

Who said it was your job? Obviously something so important can't be left to an idiot like you? :p

How about as an employer? I've read that something like 70% of uninsured people work but can't afford insurance. I'm guessing you favor the old "use them up and shit them out" method?

And you people wonder why Bush's so called "compassionate conservatism" fell flat on it's face. Too bad it had to take the economy down with it.