Updated UHC Costs from CBO

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait. Medicaid is over 320 billion a year and some actually believes it would only cost 150 billion for everyone much less 60 billion?

Pull the other one

Shhh... the sheep are sleeping..

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jeffg010

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, $750 per year is a big pay cut for you? You must be scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty hard.

Laugh it off fool I'd rather keep my money then give it away.

You give it away anyways. The uninsured are a burden on the overall economy, especially when they get treatment at the ER.

I think you found the solution!

No insurance, hit the bricks pal. Like it is currently in many parts of the world. Cash on the barrelhead or bleed dry for all the hospital cares.

paultard spotted

 

[alchemize]

If they really want a plan that competes with private insurers, they should partner with all Blue Cross/Blue shields to administer a bare bones preventative/catastrophic plan that the US govt plays the role of the reinsurer on, and the premium would be income tested.

Of course, then the fucks in washington couldn't represent their respective special interest groups very well. moar government, entrenched parties!!!

 

[ZeGermans]

I hate big government!

*votes to impose our government on foreign powers*

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jeffg010

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, $750 per year is a big pay cut for you? You must be scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty hard.

Laugh it off fool I'd rather keep my money then give it away.

You give it away anyways. The uninsured are a burden on the overall economy, especially when they get treatment at the ER.

I think you found the solution!

No insurance, hit the bricks pal. Like it is currently in many parts of the world. Cash on the barrelhead or bleed dry for all the hospital cares.

paultard spotted

Says the rapist...

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait. Medicaid is over 320 billion a year and some actually believes it would only cost 150 billion for everyone much less 60 billion?

Pull the other one

Shhh... the sheep are sleeping..

Exactly. I'm not sure why everyone is just accepting these numbers because they are incredibly unrealistic. Let's say that the gov't would provide coverage for only 50 million people. That is about 1/6 of the population of the US. Now let's estimate a VERY conservative $200/month/person cost. Let's do the math,

$200 * 12 = $2400/year.
$2400 * 50,000,000 = $120,000,000,000 ($120 billion).

So we're talking about $120 billion per year to cover 50 million people at a cost of $200 per person per month.

So to hit that $60 billion per year, the monthly cost would have to drop down to $100/person/month.

But we're not talking about covering only 50 million people. We need to cover maybe 150 million (some will keep their current insurance or already be on medicare or whatever so I think this is realistic). That means that it would cost approximately $33/person/month for insurance.

Now tell me, does it seem right that the government could lower the cost of healthcare by SO much that it would be feasible for it to only cost people $33/month for health insurance?


Obviously these are round numbers and not real, but think about how far off the government's numbers seem when you put them into perspective.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Yay for being forced into a system that offers worse performance then what we currently have.
When did healthcare become a right that the middle class have to pay for so everyone can have it? Jesus........

Could you provide a source for your claim that Medicaid/Medicare provides "worse performance" than having no insurance at all or the medical care facilities having to do the extra paperwork associated with collections and tax deductions related to "free" treatment of those without any insurance?

Kthxbye.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait. Medicaid is over 320 billion a year and some actually believes it would only cost 150 billion for everyone much less 60 billion?

Pull the other one

Shhh... the sheep are sleeping..

Exactly. I'm not sure why everyone is just accepting these numbers because they are incredibly unrealistic. Let's say that the gov't would provide coverage for only 50 million people. That is about 1/6 of the population of the US. Now let's estimate a VERY conservative $200/month/person cost. Let's do the math,

$200 * 12 = $2400/year.
$2400 * 50,000,000 = $120,000,000,000 ($120 billion).

So we're talking about $120 billion per year to cover 50 million people at a cost of $200 per person per month.

So to hit that $60 billion per year, the monthly cost would have to drop down to $100/person/month.

But we're not talking about covering only 50 million people. We need to cover maybe 150 million (some will keep their current insurance or already be on medicare or whatever so I think this is realistic). That means that it would cost approximately $33/person/month for insurance.

Now tell me, does it seem right that the government could lower the cost of healthcare by SO much that it would be feasible for it to only cost people $33/month for health insurance?


Obviously these are round numbers and not real, but think about how far off the government's numbers seem when you put them into perspective.

How in the world did you get 150 million people out of this? Have you even read the CBO's analysis? I think the answer is quite obviously no. Their plan takes 20 million people off the rolls at the cost of roughly $600 billion. That turns into $3,000 per person per year, or about 10 times what your made up estimate was. (this is still less than half the price per year of our private system)

Again, amazing to see how the CBO is credible in mid-June when it releases a report critical of expanded health care, but now it's full of crap. I wonder what changed? Hmmmmmm.....

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

I think you found the solution!

No insurance, hit the bricks pal. Like it is currently in many parts of the world. Cash on the barrelhead or bleed dry for all the hospital cares.

You are a complete idiot and tool.

Please name the developed, civilized countries that allow their citizenry to just "bleed it out".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait. Medicaid is over 320 billion a year and some actually believes it would only cost 150 billion for everyone much less 60 billion?

Pull the other one

Shhh... the sheep are sleeping..

Exactly. I'm not sure why everyone is just accepting these numbers because they are incredibly unrealistic. Let's say that the gov't would provide coverage for only 50 million people. That is about 1/6 of the population of the US. Now let's estimate a VERY conservative $200/month/person cost. Let's do the math,

$200 * 12 = $2400/year.
$2400 * 50,000,000 = $120,000,000,000 ($120 billion).

So we're talking about $120 billion per year to cover 50 million people at a cost of $200 per person per month.

So to hit that $60 billion per year, the monthly cost would have to drop down to $100/person/month.

But we're not talking about covering only 50 million people. We need to cover maybe 150 million (some will keep their current insurance or already be on medicare or whatever so I think this is realistic). That means that it would cost approximately $33/person/month for insurance.

Now tell me, does it seem right that the government could lower the cost of healthcare by SO much that it would be feasible for it to only cost people $33/month for health insurance?


Obviously these are round numbers and not real, but think about how far off the government's numbers seem when you put them into perspective.

How in the world did you get 150 million people out of this? Have you even read the CBO's analysis? I think the answer is quite obviously no. Their plan takes 20 million people off the rolls at the cost of roughly $600 billion. That turns into $3,000 per person per year, or about 10 times what your made up estimate was. (this is still less than half the price per year of our private system)

Again, amazing to see how the CBO is credible in mid-June when it releases a report critical of expanded health care, but now it's full of crap. I wonder what changed? Hmmmmmm.....

So why don't you tell us just what the TCO of UHC will be, how that money will be raised, what will be covered, and what will not?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Surely none of you believe this figure, do you? Wasn't the Iraq war supposed to cost $60B? Why, yes it was.

Not letting existing employers drop is braindead. It would make a new company far more competitive.

The reason this is cheaper is because it leaves the existing system in tact.

And, unlike the original figure which was an outright shameful lie, this one is a disgusting despicable outright shameful lie.

I hope somebody can bump this in a few years so that we can lol at the people who think it will come anywhere close to $60B.

QFT

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

How in the world did you get 150 million people out of this? Have you even read the CBO's analysis? I think the answer is quite obviously no. Their plan takes 20 million people off the rolls at the cost of roughly $600 billion. That turns into $3,000 per person per year, or about 10 times what your made up estimate was. (this is still less than half the price per year of our private system)

Again, amazing to see how the CBO is credible in mid-June when it releases a report critical of expanded health care, but now it's full of crap. I wonder what changed? Hmmmmmm.....

So why don't you tell us just what the TCO of UHC will be, how that money will be raised, what will be covered, and what will not?

Well that seems like a reasonable request.

 

[sactoking]

Link

WASHINGTON ? House Democrats have unveiled sweeping legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Tuesday the bill is both a starting point and a path to success. She was joined by committee chairmen and other House leaders. They stood before a banner reading "Quality affordable health care for the middle class."

Pelosi and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the House would pass the bill before the August recess.

The legislation would impose penalties on employers who fail to provide health insurance for their workers and on individuals who refuse to buy it.

President Barack Obama is pushing the House and Senate to vote on bills before their vacation break.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) ? House Democrats readied legislation Tuesday that imposes penalties on employers who fail to provide health insurance for their workers and on individuals who refuse to buy it, part of a sweeping effort to overhaul the nation's health care system.

The bill, to be debated in committee beginning later this week, would require insurance companies to offer coverage, without exceptions or higher premiums in cases of pre-existing medical conditions. It also would allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms, a provision that has sparked objections from Republicans and even some Democrats.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other key Democrats arranged to unveil the legislation at an afternoon news conference. A copy of the legislation was obtained by The Associated Press.

Even before they did, the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee announced it would vote on the proposal beginning on Thursday. The panel is one of three that must act before the bill can go to the full House, probably later in the month.

The developments occurred one day after President Barack Obama met with key Democrats in a White House session in which he told a powerful Senate chairman he wants legislation by week's end in his committee.

In all, the draft House bill runs more than 1,000 pages, and is designed to fulfill Obama's call for legislation that will extend coverage to millions who lack it, as well as begin to slow the rate of growth in health care generally.

In a statement, Obama praised the proposal, saying it "will begin the process of fixing what's broken about our health care system, reducing costs for all, building on what works and covering an estimated 97 percent of all Americans. And by emphasizing prevention and wellness, it will also help improve the quality of health care for every American."

Key elements of the legislation include federal subsidies for poorer individuals and families to help them afford coverage.

Financing would come from a federal surtax on the upper income ? up to 5.4 percent on the income of taxpayers making more than $1 million a year ? as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.

The new income tax on the wealthy is estimated to raise more than $500 billion over the next decade, and reductions in Medicaid and Medicare would account for nearly as much.

Democrats did not say in advance what the overall legislation would cost.

Numerous issues remain subject to change as the bill makes its way through committee. In particular, moderate to conservative Democrats have been negotiating for several days, asking for changes affecting rural health care as well as other issues.

Employers who do not offer coverage would be required to pay 8 percent of each uninsured worker's salary, with exemptions for smaller firms built into the legislation.

Individuals who refused to buy affordable coverage would be assessed as much as 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, up to the cost of an average health insurance plan, according to the legislation.

The legislation would set up a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private coverage. The plan's payments to medical providers such as hospitals and doctors would be keyed to the rates paid by Medicare, which are lower than what private insurers pay.

Eventually, all individuals and employers would be offered the option of joining the public plan. The insurance industry says that would drive many private insurers out of business.

Across the Capitol, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee slogged toward passage of its version of the bill on what is expected to be a party-line vote.

Because of jurisdictional issues, the Senate Finance Committee, a separate panel, retains control over the drafting of provisions paying for any legislation.

Obama told the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, on Monday at the White House he wants legislation by week's end, officials reported. The president did not say whether he prefers a bipartisan bill, which Baucus has been trying to piece together with Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, or a bill tailored more to Democratic specifications.

Obama has urged Congress to pass legislation through both houses before lawmakers leave the Capitol on a summer vacation.

While Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have both expressed support for the timetable, their efforts have been slowed in recent days by internal squabbling.

Additionally, some House Democrats have privately expressed concern that they will be required to vote on higher taxes, only to learn later that the Senate does not intend to follow through with legislation of its own. That would leave rank and file House Democrats in the uncomfortable situation of having to explain their vote on a costly bill that never reached Obama's desk or became law.

In the Finance Committee some controversial issues remain unresolved, including how to pay for the bill and a Democratic demand for the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry, a proposal Republicans oppose strongly. Finance members have been laboring to produce a bipartisan bill, but Grassley, the panel's top Republican, told The Associated Press on Tuesday it's "still up in the air" whether any bill produced this week would be bipartisan.

The most idiotic points are highlighted.

 

[Genx87]

Individuals who refused to buy affordable coverage would be assessed as much as 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, up to the cost of an average health insurance plan, according to the legislation.

Isnt that RomneyCare? How has that worked out?

 

[theeedude]

Sounds like a solid plan. House and Senate need to act and get the bill to Obama's desk before summer recess.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Individuals who refused to buy affordable coverage would be assessed as much as 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, up to the cost of an average health insurance plan, according to the legislation.

Isnt that RomneyCare? How has that worked out?

lol, yeah. Seems after romney care, the premium costs went up FASTER than the national average. Hmmm... yeah let's pass something like that... F'n socialist morons.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Individuals who refused to buy affordable coverage would be assessed as much as 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, up to the cost of an average health insurance plan, according to the legislation.

Isnt that RomneyCare? How has that worked out?

lol, yeah. Seems after romney care, the premium costs went up FASTER than the national average. Hmmm... yeah let's pass something like that... F'n socialist morons.

So private insurers are fighting this because they don't want to collect higher premiums?
Maybe they are f'n socialist morons then.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

From the last article...

Eventually, all individuals and employers would be offered the option of joining the public plan.

I, for one, look forward to welcoming our new healthcare overlords.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: senseamp

You give it away anyways. The uninsured are a burden on the overall economy, especially when they get treatment at the ER.

OK, I'm freaking sick of this argument. You can show the costs and explain how logical and great your argument is but what you don't seem to grasp is this very simple truth:


If I'm paying for it already, then why do you need more of my money to pay for it?



You want UHC and all the mud lucious puddle wonderful promises it entails, then use the money myself and everyone else in her "already pays" to freakin cover it and leave me out of it. If I want government healthcare, I'll declare myself incompetent(alcoholism comes to mind) and collect SS and Medicaid/care whatever the hell it is. Only incompetent morons would volunteer to let their government mandate their healthcare anyway. As was stated earlier, when did healthcare become your right at my expense?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: senseamp

You give it away anyways. The uninsured are a burden on the overall economy, especially when they get treatment at the ER.

OK, I'm freaking sick of this argument. You can show the costs and explain how logical and great your argument is but what you don't seem to grasp is this very simple truth:


If I'm paying for it already, then why do you need more of my money to pay for it?



You want UHC and all the mud lucious puddle wonderful promises it entails, then use the money myself and everyone else in her "already pays" to freakin cover it and leave me out of it. If I want government healthcare, I'll declare myself incompetent(alcoholism comes to mind) and collect SS and Medicaid/care whatever the hell it is. Only incompetent morons would volunteer to let their government mandate their healthcare anyway. As was stated earlier, when did healthcare become your right at my expense?

Do you not understand that prevention at Doctor's office is cheaper than treating someone in ER once their condition becomes more serious?
Really, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

 

[Carmen813]

The giant article linked above about the House Proposal is not the same plan this thread was about.

 

[sactoking]

What, we're no longer allowed to update threads as the landscape changes?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: sactoking
What, we're no longer allowed to update threads as the landscape changes?

Well, I just think that bringing up the House's proposal in a thread about one of the Senate's is disingenuous. At least to do so without explicitly stating so. Your post makes it appear that the original post I made is no longer accurate, which is not the case.

I disagree with some of the things you highlighted as being "idiotic" as well, particularly the part about pre-existing conditions.

Personally, I'm still hoping Conrad can make his proposal work as I see it as the best chance at bipartisanship.

 

[sactoking]

After looking at the existing UHC threads, this one seemed the most appropriate; Congressional plans, discussion about costs, etc. I was just trying to keep the "thread clutter" (i.e., Yet Another Universal Health Care Thread) down by not starting a new one.

 

[Dulanic]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Carmen813
http://www.google.com/hostedne...-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99612R00

This is the plan being put forth by Kennedy, apparently the same one that was criticized a few weeks ago for costing $1.6 trillion and only covering 1/3 of uninsured Americans.


Not sure what commentary I can add, once the plan is more fully described this could be a good option for us. It contains a public option, which I like, but Conservatives hate, and a yearly fee on employers that do not cover insurance. This yearly fee would still be much less than the cost of providing employer based insurance, and small businesses (<25) would be exempt.

The way the bill is written also prevents employers from dropping currently covered employees.

Looks like some progress is being made, though I imagine the naysayers will be out in full force in this thread soon enough.

Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.

Is that even a hefty fee? Employers are charged like $12k per employee to provide private health care. Now the alternative is a slap on the wrist of $750? I'm not exactly for mandates, but if you want to have a mandate shouldn't you put some teeth on that thing to make sure it generates some serious revenue?

Or another way to look at it is just luring the employers out of the private health sector and forcing everyone to look for alternatives... like the public plan.

That number seemed low to me too, but apparently the way the bill was changed was that employers would be prevented from dropping currently covered employees. In other words they couldn't game the system by dropping their coverage and paying the relatively small $750/worker fee. So the situation you described shouldn't be possible.

I don't believe healthcare costs $12k per employee, that sounds a bit inflated. I numbers I read the other day put the average cost of healthcare for a family of 4 at $13,000 a year.

Yes it is lower. My employer gives my exact figures:

My Contribution Employer Contribution
Medical $1,392.00 $3,504.00

This was for 2008 and was for $0 deductible for most items and $15 dr co-pay.

Keep in mind this is a fortune 100 company so it has a lot of employees so I am sure they get a big discount.