The Preliminary CBO score for HC reform is out

[heyheybooboo]

It will work better than expected. It's the key to solving our fiscal problems too.

One key.

The next key will be a self-funded, single-payer public option.

The final keys will be reforming SS, reducing troop strength to 30k in Iraq and Afghanistan, rolling back 2/3s of the Bush/GOP tax cuts, banking reform and slapping a 'TARP Tax' on Wall Street to recoup our 'public' investment.




--

 

[Genx87]

One key.

The next key will be a self-funded, single-payer public option.

The final keys will be reforming SS, reducing troop strength to 30k in Iraq and Afghanistan, rolling back 2/3s of the Bush/GOP tax cuts, banking reform and slapping a 'TARP Tax' on Wall Street to recoup our 'public' investment.




--

I'd expect the only thing that happens on your list is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. But even Obama has said he may push to maintain them. I dont expect meaningful banking reform out of this congress or administration. Too many insiders within their ranks. Which means it is only a matter of time until we have another banking crisis. SS reform will never happen. Each year millions more baby boomers are put on the system. And they vote. Our wars will unfortunately continue for another decade.

 

[heyheybooboo]

CBO isnt infallible. They still have egg on their face from making a prediction a decade ago we would erase our debt. Sure if we had a ridiculously hot economy like we did in 1999 for another decade it would have come true. But life isnt so simple. And I would take any estimate of deficit and cost reduction with a huge grain of salt. I cant think of a single govt program where that was promised and was delivered.

The CBO was right.

Of course, being the Troll GOP Turd that you are, you will refuse to acknowledge that Bush and the GOP paid for nothing and are responsible for 85% of our current budget deficit.




--

 

[EagleKeeper]

Deficit reductions and cost reductions are two different things. We could have a balanced budget tomorrow if we cut the budget by 1.2 trillion or taxed people by 1.2 trillion. How does that help us with cost though? One of the primary drivers of this reform was to tackle the costs within the system. Simply taxing people for x years before providing a service then claiming we reduced the deficit tells us nothing. Except that we reduced the deficit with another tax.

I dont see how we maintain the current status quo of private entitlement insurance, add more people to the system, and reduce costs. It just doesnt compute.

The number manipulators feel that if you add in X number of healthy people into the insurance system, that will balance out most of the costs for the Y number of unhealthy people. The difference will be covered by the Z people already in the system and the lessening of critical care by some of the Y people

By attempting on having everyone healthy (getting preventive care) the manipulators feel that the amount of care needed will drop - therefore reducing expenses on the system.

These manipulators refuse to look at the fact that the amount of increased preventive care will not reduce the critical care needs by a significant factor.

 

[Genx87]

The CBO was right.

Of course, being the Troll GOP Turd that you are, you will refuse to acknowledge that Bush and the GOP paid for nothing and are responsible for 85% of our current budget deficit.




--

Throwing out names doesnt help your argument. In your froth at the mouth response you missed the most important point. Long term forecasts are impossible. Because of the very reason you posted. In 2000 the CBO could not possibly account for a Bush administration that invaded two countries. It couldnt account for an imploded stock market. And it couldnt account for govt expansion going out of control.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The CBO was right.

Of course, being the Troll GOP Turd that you are, you will refuse to acknowledge that Bush and the GOP paid for nothing and are responsible for 85% of our current budget deficit.

--

They were responsible for 2002-2009 budgets and resulting deficits.
Anything that was signed off by Obama is his. That seems to be more than a measily 15%.

 

[Modelworks]

one of the amendments that got plenty of votes

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE COMMISSION -The Commission shall be composed of 15 members to be appointed by the Comptroller General, without regard to section 5 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

What is section 5 ?

contain appropriate provisions to assure that the advice and recommendations of the
advisory committee will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest, but will instead be the result of the advisory committee's independent judgment;

make sure the authority isn't influenced by special interest and that its judgment is independent ? Nah who needs that .

 

[RedChief]

They were responsible for 2002-2009 budgets and resulting deficits.
Anything that was signed off by Obama is his. That seems to be more than a measily 15%.

Don't forget that as a Senator, Obama voted for the the 07 and 08 budgets. He wanted those debts as much as Bush did.

 

[Carmen813]

Deficit reductions and cost reductions are two different things. We could have a balanced budget tomorrow if we cut the budget by 1.2 trillion or taxed people by 1.2 trillion. How does that help us with cost though? One of the primary drivers of this reform was to tackle the costs within the system. Simply taxing people for x years before providing a service then claiming we reduced the deficit tells us nothing. Except that we reduced the deficit with another tax.

I dont see how we maintain the current status quo of private entitlement insurance, add more people to the system, and reduce costs. It just doesnt compute.

I understand the difference.

Read section G of the article I provided. Section G deals with how much total economic "cost" there is by enacting the Senate or House bills. It's not worth looking at the House bill numbers as that bill is dead.

As you said, one of the primary drivers was to control costs with this reform effort. However, the other major driver was to expand coverage. If you look at the Senate bill, total health increase costs by about $800 billion over the next 20 years. However, we are also covering 30 million more people, which is largely the reason for overall costs increase.

My point: If we just acted to expand coverage, we could do that, but it would cost even more money if no action was taken to curb costs. The net result is yes, an overall cost increase, but that is because we are no longer telling 1/6 of the population that they can't have health insurance.

If you disagree with the general goal of expanding coverage, which is a perfectly acceptable opinion, then I suspect this knowledge won't really make you feel any better. That's really the difference between Liberals and Conservatives on this issue, Conservatives only want to control costs, Liberals want to control costs and expand coverage.

My feeling is that we should do what we can to expand coverage as much as possible, while also working to cut costs as much as possible. To that end, I think this bill does a pretty good job. It's basically costing our economy an additional $50 billion a year on top of current spending to help ensure that every American has health insurance. It's worth noting that, unlike the House bill, overall yearly costs under the Senate bill are relatively flat until 2029. The Senate bill doesn't lead to exponentially increasing health care costs. (see Graph on page 43 to see what I'm talking about)

 

[werepossum]

I don't have the exact number, but I believe like $200 billion of that money comes from eliminating the Medicare program that allows seniors to use Medicare funds to purchase private insurance. This was a law created and signed by Republicans, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated to be an utter waste of money. It's called Medicare Advantage, look it up.

You can't do anything about that without changing the law.

A great deal of the waste comes from doctors ordering unnecessary tests. Sometimes these tests are ordered so that the provider can milk some extra money from Medicare (fraud), sometimes because they want to cover their own ass (waste due to defensive medicine). You can't change that without changing the law.

I doubt that the seniors on private insurance plans would agree with your assessment, but in any case both of those things could easily be passed on their own, with bipartisan support. Neither requires a massive reordering of American society to become practical.

 

[Carmen813]

I doubt that the seniors on private insurance plans would agree with your assessment, but in any case both of those things could easily be passed on their own, with bipartisan support. Neither requires a massive reordering of American society to become practical.

Of course they wouldn't agree, but then again, they don't really know where the Medicare money is going, do they? That's part of the problem with health care, the costs are not transparent. It's unlikely you would get bipartisan support to end this policy, as it is something Conservative politicians love. They sell Medicare advantage as a free market approach...but its really not...its basically a bastardization which results in what amounts to corporate welfare. Basically the government ends up paying 15% more to provide the exact same coverage that people on normal Medicare receive.

 

[werepossum]

Of course they wouldn't agree, but then again, they don't really know where the Medicare money is going, do they? That's part of the problem with health care, the costs are not transparent. It's unlikely you would get bipartisan support to end this policy, as it is something Conservative politicians love. They sell Medicare advantage as a free market approach...but its really not...its basically a bastardization which results in what amounts to corporate welfare. Basically the government ends up paying 15% more to provide the exact same coverage that people on normal Medicare receive.

I for one have no problem with ending this subsidy - although if people are using it, then they must perceive some benefit in NOT having a government health insurance solution - but again, this is easily done by itself. Claiming otherwise would be akin to demanding that government tax capital gains as wage income in order to eliminate a loophole for hedge fund managers.

 

[Carmen813]

I for one have no problem with ending this subsidy - although if people are using it, then they must perceive some benefit in NOT having a government health insurance solution - but again, this is easily done by itself. Claiming otherwise would be akin to demanding that government tax capital gains as wage income in order to eliminate a loophole for hedge fund managers.

I can tell you from personal experience that the biggest problem with Medicaid is that the provider reimbursement rate is too low. That said, I don't think the Medicare reimbursement rate is different between people on normal medicare and those using Medicare advantage.

As I said, the whole thing is bullshit. Medicare Advantage is still a government health insurance solution. It's not a private plan if the government is paying for it, it's just an illusion that it is.

It's just how Medicaid works in NYS. You sign up for Medicaid and pick an HMO, for example, Blue Cross. Then Blue Cross manages all your health insurance. They can still deny you for claims, based on whatever policy they have in place. When they fill a claim, they are paid by the state.

It's pretty much the exact same problem we have with student loans.

Anyway, I'm off to work.

 

[shira]

CBO isnt infallible. They still have egg on their face from making a prediction a decade ago we would erase our debt. Sure if we had a ridiculously hot economy like we did in 1999 for another decade it would have come true. But life isnt so simple. And I would take any estimate of deficit and cost reduction with a huge grain of salt. I cant think of a single govt program where that was promised and was delivered.

You're right, they aren't infallible. But neither is anyone else. And every other analysis is usually tainted by partisanship and/or self interest. The CBO, at least, is influenced by neither.

Also, the CBO has tons more resources and experience in these matters than any other organization. So if you're going to slam the CBO figures on the basis that "your figures" are better, you're making a pretty drastic leap of faith.

Now, if a large consensus of other groups/analyses strong differed from the figures of the CBO, you'd have a valid argument. But that consensus doesn't exist.

 

[blackangst1]

So $500 billion in Medicare fraud and waste (which government already completely funds and controls) can be found and removed - but ONLY if the government seizes control of the rest of the health care system? That's bull by-product and you know it. If Obama could remove $500 billion in Medicare fraud and waste without cutting services, he'd do it and then he'd have the single payer system he wants. Hell, he'd be the most popular president in my lifetime.

True statement.

 

[piasabird]

This is probably some bogous accounting. Already the hospitals are paying for the illegals by shifting the cost to the insured. This means that if the government option kicks in that that cost will shift to the government. Good luck figuring that out.
Just take the figure and at least multiply by 3. This is based on the budget over-runs by Medicare.

There is also requirements that you have to use a minority doctor if one is available. Quotas for Doctors that could not make it into medical school. Hope your child doesnt need a real doctor.

 

[shira]

My feeling is that we should do what we can to expand coverage as much as possible, while also working to cut costs as much as possible. To that end, I think this bill does a pretty good job. It's basically costing our economy an additional $50 billion a year on top of current spending to help ensure that every American has health insurance. It's worth noting that, unlike the House bill, overall yearly costs under the Senate bill are relatively flat until 2029. The Senate bill doesn't lead to exponentially increasing health care costs. (see Graph on page 43 to see what I'm talking about)

I agree with you.

I look at the current bill as a starting point. There are a number of cost-control improvements that can be added by separate legislation.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm really getting fed up with this "this reduces the deficit" bullcrap coming out of every lefty talking piece.

My view of the term "reduces the deficit" should mean "pays for itself" or "reduces spending". But instead this term is being used to mean "raises taxes"...

 

[evident]

This is probably some bogous accounting. Already the hospitals are paying for the uninsured by shifting the cost to the insured. This means that if the government option kicks in that that cost will shift to the government. Good luck figuring that out.
Just take the figure and at least multiply by 3. This is based on the budget over-runs by Medicare.

There is also requirements that you have to use a minority doctor if one is available. Quotas for Doctors that could not make it into medical school. Hope your child doesnt need a real doctor.

fixed. isn't one of the reasons for our high insurance rates because of thse 30 million or whoever uninsured that go to hospitals, get care, and have no way to pay for it?

 

[Modelworks]

I'm really getting fed up with this "this reduces the deficit" bullcrap coming out of every lefty talking piece.

My view of the term "reduces the deficit" should mean "pays for itself" or "reduces spending". But instead this term is being used to mean "raises taxes"...

I looked over the bill and I see a whole lot of words like will create, New Office, New institute, New division, will add, will increase.

Not so much will reduce or will save.

 

[blackangst1]

This is probably some bogous accounting. Already the hospitals are paying for the illegals by shifting the cost to the insured. This means that if the government option kicks in that that cost will shift to the government. Good luck figuring that out.
Just take the figure and at least multiply by 3. This is based on the budget over-runs by Medicare.

There is also requirements that you have to use a minority doctor if one is available. Quotas for Doctors that could not make it into medical school. Hope your child doesnt need a real doctor.

What?

 

[Genx87]

You're right, they aren't infallible. But neither is anyone else. And every other analysis is usually tainted by partisanship and/or self interest. The CBO, at least, is influenced by neither.

Also, the CBO has tons more resources and experience in these matters than any other organization. So if you're going to slam the CBO figures on the basis that "your figures" are better, you're making a pretty drastic leap of faith.

Now, if a large consensus of other groups/analyses strong differed from the figures of the CBO, you'd have a valid argument. But that consensus doesn't exist.

It isnt a leap of faith to expect a govt run program to deliver less and be overbudget.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So the deficit will be like 19.8 trillion when Obama leaves office instead of 20 trillion? And then like 39 trillion in 2025 or so instead of 40? GREAT NEWS!!!!!

 

[nick1985]

So the deficit will be like 19.8 trillion when Obama leaves office instead of 20 trillion? And then like 39 trillion in 2025 or so instead of 40? GREAT NEWS!!!!!

I wonder what the value of the dollar will be like when Obama leaves office.

 

[her209]

I wonder what the value of the dollar will be like when Obama leaves office.

Compared to what?