Report: House Health Care Bill INCREASES Costs By $289 Billion

[Patranus]

Democrats have promised that health reform would reduce health care costs, but legislation the House passed last week would increase costs over the next decade by $289 billion. By 2019, health costs would rise to 21.1 percent of GDP compared to 20.8 under current law, according to an actuarial report prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/CMS_House_bill_increases_health_care_costs_.html?showall

So, if the goal of the 2000 pages composing HR3962 is to bend the cost cure but it doesn't do that....it in fact does the opposite, what is the point?

Time to go back to the drawing board.

 

[jhu]

If anyone's interested here's the bill. It's somewhat readable in the first few pages. Later on there's crap like:

(3) Section1847A(c)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w03a(c)(6)) is amended by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the following:
"(G) IMPLEMENTATION - Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code shall not apply to manufacturer provision of information pursuant to section1927(b)(3)(A)(iii) for purposes of implementation of this section".

There needs to be some law that makes legislation parsable by 10th graders and not 100s of pages.

 

[Patranus]

There needs to be some law that makes legislation parsable by 10th graders and not 100s of pages.

There is legislation, its called the Constitution, it just needs to be enforced.

 

[Acanthus]

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/CMS_House_bill_increases_health_care_costs_.html?showall

So, if the goal of the 2000 pages composing HR3962 is to bend the cost cure but it doesn't do that....it in fact does the opposite, what is the point?

Time to go back to the drawing board.

This assumes that supply is static.

It also doesn't apply any of the cost savings nor the is it talking about whether the plan itself actually costs anything.

Covering 30% more of the nation costs more as a percent of GDP. I'm shocked.

 

[boomerang]

It's a turd of a bill crafted by sphincters. Time to pinch it off.

 

[First]

The math isn't that hard to figure out. It's going to increase costs as a % of GDP for the immediate and short-term. 5-15 years depending entirely on what the final bill looks like and whether the economy grows at a substantial rate during all or part of that period. You can't suddenly cover 10's of millions of additional people that weren't in the supply of the uninsured without increasing short-term costs substantially. Dems will try to avoid that reality with fancy wording and spin, and they're going to have to if they want to keep Blue Dogs in power. But over the long haul, if the economy grows and the pace of population growth remains at its historical levels, GDP should swiftly and substantially outstrip the initial supply shock of an additional 30M-40M people put on the healthcare tab in the next few years. We'll see how robust the public option is, though.

 

[Robor]

Covering more people costs more than now? Shocking info PaTrollUs.

 

[fskimospy]

If anyone's interested here's the bill. It's somewhat readable in the first few pages. Later on there's crap like:



There needs to be some law that makes legislation parsable by 10th graders and not 100s of pages.

You guys did know that's why the bills are that long, right? Because they have to make sure they are compatible with previous legislation, etc. Having them be written so a 10th grader is a laudable goal but it is hopelessly unrealistic.

 

[fskimospy]

There is legislation, its called the Constitution, it just needs to be enforced.

You definitely need to read that article from the Onion that I posted about the guy vehemently defending what he thinks is in the Constitution.

 

[Genx87]

I think anybody with common sense knows the current shit on the table isnt going to control costs. Even with the fancy accounting measures they are trying to stuff down our throats.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Single payer would cut costs. Why is it that America is always afraid of the best options, proven again and again in other countries.

You don't appease the dragon, you slay it.

 

[0marTheZealot]

There is legislation, its called the Constitution, it just needs to be enforced.

Okay, I agree with you. We should dismantle NASA, the Airforce, the President's Cabinet, and anything else that's not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. All those extra agencies should be at the behest of the states, as outlined in the 10th amendment.

 

[Modelworks]

You guys did know that's why the bills are that long, right? Because they have to make sure they are compatible with previous legislation, etc. Having them be written so a 10th grader is a laudable goal but it is hopelessly unrealistic.

I thought they were that long so everyone could fit in their own pet projects.

A better idea is not having it written at all. It is unconstitutional but who cares about that old thing.

 

[fskimospy]

I thought they were that long so everyone could fit in their own pet projects.

A better idea is not having it written at all. It is unconstitutional but who cares about that old thing.

No it isn't. This has been gone over before. (well, to be most accurate it is highly unlikely to be found unconstitutional.)

The best idea is to have a real health care overhaul that replaces our system with a single payer one. That won't happen overnight in America though, so we have to take it one step at a time.

 

[Mursilis]

Really, any debate over the supposed costs of some future program is essentially pointless. Costs of these massive programs rarely are predicted accurately (almost always too low), so we're just quibbling over whose imaginarly numbers are more "real", when none of them are. What were the Iraq and Afghan wars supposed to cost, and what are they actually costing? All we can know for sure is that any healthcare legislation is going to increase the deficit - the only question yet to be answered is by how much, and we won't know for many years.

 

[Ausm]

Since most of Congress is obviously owned by Big pharma and the insurance industry, I don't really think this is a big surprise that this healthcare legislation is gigantic clusterfuck.

 

[brblx]

Since most of Congress is obviously owned by Big pharma and the insurance industry, I don't really think this is a big surprise that this healthcare legislation is gigantic clusterfuck.

especially when the corporations have convinced the stupider half of the country that affordable healthcare will rape their babies and murder their grandmothers.

 

[sandorski]

If anyone's interested here's the bill. It's somewhat readable in the first few pages. Later on there's crap like:



There needs to be some law that makes legislation parsable by 10th graders and not 100s of pages.

Have you any idea how much space was saved by that statement? Making that "10th Grade Level", as you put it (although I find that term confusing since your quote is merely Referencing other sections of the Bill), wouldn't shorten anything. The opposite would occur, causing an explosion in size.

 

[shira]

What naysayers constantly overlook when they whine about the projected costs of the healthcare proposal is that this compares ONLY predicted federal expenditures with and without the proposal in place.

Absent from this analysis is that - without the healthcare proposal, hundreds of billions would STILL need to be spent by OTHER than the federal government to pay for the healthcare costs of the uninsured. That would mean higher state taxes (to fund public health clinics) and higher fees charged by hospitals and health care providers (to subsidize the expense of the uninsured), which in turn would be reflected in higher health insurance premiums.

With health care reform in place, federal expenditures would increase, but these other costs would be significantly reduced (not eliminated entirely, since there will still be an estimated 10 to 20 million uninsured even after reform is in place).

 

[Patranus]

Okay, I agree with you. We should dismantle NASA, the Airforce, the President's Cabinet, and anything else that's not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. All those extra agencies should be at the behest of the states, as outlined in the 10th amendment.

I am pretty sure the Air Force would fall under the federal governments ability to raise an army.

Why don't you think before you type.

 

[Patranus]

Covering 30% more of the nation costs more as a percent of GDP. I'm shocked.

If the entire point is to lower that number (percent of GDP) by "bending the cost curve" than what is the point?

If these people can walk into a hospital and get care on the taxpayers dime right now anyways, why should the USA implement this insurance scam if it will cost money, not save it?

 

[sandorski]

I am pretty sure the Air Force would fall under the federal governments ability to raise an army.

Why don't you think before you type.

"Air Force" is definitely not in the Constitution!

 

[rudder]

It looks like the people who will be funding our healthcare are getting a little nervous...

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/16/china-questions-costs-of-us-healthcare-reform/

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If anyone's interested here's the bill. It's somewhat readable in the first few pages. Later on there's crap like:



There needs to be some law that makes legislation parsable by 10th graders and not 100s of pages.

Why? You still couldn't read it.

And what we need is people running the country with > a 10th grade education, the last 8yrs of "grade school" dumbasses running the country almost destroyed it. If we "dumb down" any more we will need a translator to read a fucking stop sign.

 

[0marTheZealot]

I am pretty sure the Air Force would fall under the federal governments ability to raise an army.

Why don't you think before you type.

No, the founding fathers didn't explicitly say the Federal Government has the ability to maintain an airforce. They saw fit to explicitly mention an army and a navy, but no airforce. Therefore, the existence of the airforce is unconstitutional.

Secondly, if you ever thought before you post, this forum would be 10 times better off than where it is now. I haven't seen a single post from you that actually contained an intelligent thought. You are one of the biggest partisan hacks on this board, eschewing independent thinking for blind ideology.