Lucky... 0 #126 October 29, 2009 Quotesure, you can pay the extra taxes to support health care and they pay extra for a private plan and call that a 'choice to opt out' The plan *might* tax the private cadillac plans as they are just deferred compensation. The general populace, you and me, won't see a tax increase. QuoteI would agree that 3 of 4 people would be happy to opt out for a private plan if they could also opt out of the increased tax load to support the plan they don't want to participate in Aren't you speaking for them? Quotea government sponsored health savings plan would be something that might accomplish it - kinda like vouchers for schools - but it would still be a forced PAYticipation for all And of course that sucks...... unless you need it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #127 October 29, 2009 >Ah, so since you don't like them they are not viable alternatives. Here are the right wing's "viable alternatives" as of today: ========= QUESTION: Will the Republicans put their alternative [health care plan] online for 72 hours as well? BOEHNER: Uh, we’ll uh, we’ll have our ideas ready. Don’t worry. . . . QUESTION: Is it your plan to have one Republican alternative that you all would get behind and endorse? BOHNER: We have a number of ideas that we would like to proffer in this process, and we’re not quite sure how the majority intends to proceed. And so until we understand how they intend to proceed, it’s pretty difficult for us to have a solid plan. ========== Yep. Any day now they'll have a solid plan. They've only had a year, for chrissakes! Give them another decade and they might be able to put a solid plan together, if the stars align and Obama is defeated. Until then, well, it's impossible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #128 October 29, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Hmm! Once again, RepublicanReports shows a different result than every other polling organization! Best listen exclusively to them and ignore all other facts, lest you hear something that conflicts with your biases. Well, thier history is better and newer than what you have posted Yea, all is rosey. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrosecolored.htm http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrovecolored.htm This one, to me, defines conservatism: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushsheep.htm That's my new screensaver why? cause that it the side of a sheep you usually see?? dont forget your tingley's!! Is that the best you can do? You're slipping I am from farm country. The only better would be if you were the one in Des Moines caught putting a skirt on the woolly animal. That wasn't you, was it??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #129 October 29, 2009 Quote>Ah, so since you don't like them they are not viable alternatives. Here are the right wing's "viable alternatives" as of today: ========= QUESTION: Will the Republicans put their alternative [health care plan] online for 72 hours as well?hope so, or I will call them out too BOEHNER: Uh, we’ll uh, we’ll have our ideas ready. Don’t worry. . . . QUESTION: Is it your plan to have one Republican alternative that you all would get behind and endorse? BOHNER: We have a number of ideas that we would like to proffer in this process, and we’re not quite sure how the majority intends to proceed. And so until we understand how they intend to proceed, it’s pretty difficult for us to have a solid plan. ========== Yep. Any day now they'll have a solid plan. They've only had a year, for chrissakes! Give them another decade and they might be able to put a solid plan together, if the stars align and Obama is defeated. Until then, well, it's impossible. Ok, the dems have rolled 3, 4 plans out? The R's have one? Call em both out or put a sock in it I say"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #130 October 29, 2009 Maybe Gallup will provide some in site? http://www.gallup.com/poll/121997/Americans-Healthcare-Reform-Top-Takeaways.aspx"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #131 October 29, 2009 QuoteAny day now they'll have a solid plan. Full Text of HR 3400 runs to 285 pages. They have submitted an alternative plan. Repeated assertions to the contrary are either mistakes or outright lies.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #132 October 29, 2009 > Repeated assertions to the contrary are either mistakes or outright lies. OK. Best drop a line to the House Minority Leader and tell him to stop telling lies about his own party. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #133 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuote I dont need a link. Tort reform, reduce malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums. Good. The first question is, how much? As far as I know, several states (like CA) have reduced malpractice awards, and the healthcare costs there do not seem to be significantly smaller. Second question is, why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? People have been paying those premiums before, sure they can afford it, why decrease them? Third, depending on reform, it might put doctors in danger. I pointed out a recent case in Russia, where a father shot a doctor who was not able to save his daughter. I'd speculate that if the father had an option to sue, he'd rather sue - and the doctor would likely prefer to pay huge insurance premium than just being shot (which is the only actual remedy there). Quote Open up state boarder to all offered insurance providers. This will increase competition and allow people to choose plans they want and that they can afford This is what the bill is also about, together with forcing those who can pay for insurance, to maintain it. I do suggest you read it. Quote State mandates of specific coverages are eliminated There are federal minimums in the bill, which look reasonable to me. With interstate exchange the states are unlikely be able to mandate specific coverages. Quote Today there are a over 1000 insurance companies providing HC coverage. CA for example has access to about 6 and to boot, CA has near the most mandated coverages. And if you look on real individual insurance companies, you'd be down to 3 (BC, BS and Kaiser). The rest are either virtually not accepted anywhere, or do not sell individual plans. Quote I have posted this before, as have others. I cant help it if you don't like it but that does not mean alternatives have not been provided. I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address: - People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted); - People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it); You only address part of problem. In a world of guarantee issue and continuous coverage - there is no such thing as pre-existing conditions. Mandated coverage can be enforced by connecting to other systems already in place - DL, SS, IRS, etc. Best way to determine term charges and any credits would be to connect it to AGI, filing status, etc. Everyone files a tax return, easy enough to go from there. Wanna live off the grid to the point of not filing a return, get your health care on a cash basis only." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #134 October 30, 2009 Quote Is that the best you can do? You're slipping To be fair, he's never really been able to do it well in the first place Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #135 October 30, 2009 Quote I would agree that 3 of 4 people would be happy to opt out for a private plan if they could also opt out of the increased tax load to support the plan they don't want to participate in but that would be impossible Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #136 October 30, 2009 Quote Quote Is that the best you can do? You're slipping To be fair, he's never really been able to do it well in the first place Welcome to the thread!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #137 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuote I would agree that 3 of 4 people would be happy to opt out for a private plan if they could also opt out of the increased tax load to support the plan they don't want to participate in but that would be impossible Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums. And they will be higher if you get your way"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #138 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums. And they will be higher if you get your way This is statement nobody even tried to prove so far.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #139 October 30, 2009 Quote Quote Is that the best you can do? You're slipping To be fair, he's never really been able to do it well in the first place Yea I know, it sounds better if I give him credit for it tho . Here's evidence of his quick wit and endless humor: I am from farm country. The only better would be if you were the one in Des Moines caught putting a skirt on the woolly animal. That wasn't you, was it?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #140 October 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Hmm! Once again, RepublicanReports shows a different result than every other polling organization! Best listen exclusively to them and ignore all other facts, lest you hear something that conflicts with your biases. Well, thier history is better and newer than what you have posted Yea, all is rosey. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrosecolored.htm http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrovecolored.htm This one, to me, defines conservatism: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushsheep.htm That's my new screensaver why? cause that it the side of a sheep you usually see?? dont forget your tingley's!! Is that the best you can do? You're slipping I am from farm country. The only better would be if you were the one in Des Moines caught putting a skirt on the woolly animal. That wasn't you, was it?? No, Rush, the only one here who knows of that alleged incident is you...... put it together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #141 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums. And they will be higher if you get your way This is statement nobody even tried to prove so far. And I guess it has been proven prices will lower with the Pelosi plan then? Ya right"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #142 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums. And they will be higher if you get your way This is statement nobody even tried to prove so far. QuotePremiums to Skyrocket Under Obamacare Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:55 PM By: David A. Patten Millions of consumers will suffer skyrocketing insurance premiums next year due to "indirect taxes" contained in both the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform, according to various medical and insurance industry experts. Healthcare reforms that were supposed to contain costs will actually cause a sharp hike in premiums, they add. In fact, several studies indicate consumers' premiums could more than double next year if healthcare reform takes effect. "So even though this bill tries to hide these costs as indirect taxes," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, recently told a business symposium, "average Americans who purchase health plans, take prescription drugs, or use medical devices will end up footing the bill." The rate hikes stem from the hundreds of billions in proposed fees and taxes levied on providers. According to the Senate's Joint Committee on Taxation, for example, the Finance Committee's proposal would assess $322 billion in taxes and fees on insurance premiums, prescription drugs, and medical devices. The Committee and other experts say virtually all of those costs will be passed along to consumers in all tax brackets – despite President Barack Obama's pledge not to raise taxes "one dime" on those earning less than $250,000 per year. Another likely frustration for consumers: The premium hikes will take effect right away, while the subsidies and benefits in healthcare reform won't completely kick in until 2014. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, stated Thursday in a New York Post op-ed that by front-loading the costs and back-loading benefits, Congress is resorting to "a gimmick that imposes a stiff price on the public." That "gimmick," according to Gottlieb: Using 10 years of added fees and taxes on providers to offset about five years worth of benefits. Those costs "will immediately shift onto consumers, in the form of higher prices on medical products and rising premiums," he says. Democrats have promised to insure an additional 35 million Americans, without raising taxes or increasing the tsunami of deficit red ink spilling out of Washington these days. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, appeared to concur with Gottlieb's assessment in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. "These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums," he wrote. The bottom line: Most voters will be paying higher premiums for years before they see any benefits. That could spell serious trouble for Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. The Senate bill proposes $2.3 billion in fees on brand-name drugs, $4 billion on medical devices, and $6.7 billion levied on insurance companies, plus more than $100 billion in Medicare reimbursements to medical providers – all costs that would be shifted back onto consumers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House bill appears even more expensive. It would impose $150 billion in Medicare cuts on the pharmaceutical industry, and a 2.5 percent tax on companies that manufacture medical devices. "Most of astounding of all," Holtz-Eakin wrote, "is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90 percent of that burden will be shoulders by those making $200,000 or less." Just how much will insurance premiums jump once the Democratic reforms kick in? The figures vary from state to state. According to a recent study by Wellpoint, the massive Blue Cross/Blue Shield licensee that provides insurance coverage to one in nine Americans some older and less healthy consumers could actually see rate reductions. But those cuts would be more than offset by the spiraling premium increases hitting other insurance customers. Based on provisions in the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee – which is more conservative than the broad proposals put forth by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi – Wellpoint projects healthy people in their mid-20s could see their annual premiums increase by over 150 percent in at least seven states: Indiana (199 percent); Kentucky (199 percent); Maine (172 percent); Missouri (199 percent); Ohio (199 percent); Virginia (175 percent); and Wisconsin (199 percent). For individuals of average age and health, and the small businesses employing them, the estimated rate hikes in the 14 states where Wellpoint does business would be: California Individual – 53 percent Small Employer – 22 percent Colorado Individual – 52 percent Small Employer – 9 percent Connecticut Individual – 64 percent Small Employer – 8 percent Georgia Individual – 85 percent Small Employer – 16 percent Indiana Individual – 122 percent Small Employer – 20 percent Kentucky Individual – 122 percent Small Employer – 22 percent Maine Individual – 172 percent Small Employer - 18 percent Missouri Individual – 122 percent Small Employer – 18 percent Nevada Individual – 61 percent Small Employer – 16 percent New Hampshire Individual – 19 percent Small Employer – 15 percent New York Individual – 82 percent Small Employer – 6 percent Ohio Individual – 122 percent Small Employer – 16 percent Virginia Individual – 96 percent Small Employer – 25 percent Wisconsin Individual – 122 percent Small Employer -17 percent It's important to note, however, that Wellpoint's projected rate increases do not account for the increase in medical-service costs over time. Nor do they account for other, less obvious costs likely to accompany reform. So the actual premium increases might be higher. Assuming voters aren't happy with skyrocketing premiums, the political pressure to limit the cost-shifting could be tremendous. Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a board-certified neurosurgeon and staunch opponent of current reform proposals, who authors the Blaylock Wellness Report for Newsmax Media, predicts that politicians would attempt to block the cost-shifting to consumers. Doing so, he warns, would seriously impact the quality of U.S. healthcare. "Of course, the government will anticipate this and prevent the doctors and hospitals from passing these costs to their patients," Blaylock tells Newsmax. "And this leaves one option: Severe rationing of care, which the government has wanted all along." The spiraling costs contained in the Affordable Health Care for America Act unveiled Thursday by Pelosi drew heavy fire: Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Gregory Conko called the bill "a recipe for exploding costs," adding: "The Affordable Health Care for America Act is anything but affordable. It will force millions of Americans to pay higher health insurance premiums, it taxes individuals who would like to purchase insurance options that don’t meet standards set by Washington bureaucrats, and it forces businesses and individuals to pay for insurance benefits they don’t want and don’t need." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, The National Association of Manufacturers, and seven other major associations sent a letter to Pelosi warning the legislation "falls short of the bipartisan goal of controlling costs." Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the chairman of the House Republican Conference, told CNN the Pelosi plan "looks like another freight train of big government with more taxes, more mandate and more spending – and that's not what the American people want in health care reform." He added that a search showed the nearly 2,000-page bill contains the directive "shall" 3,425 times. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., remarked in a statement: "The people of this country want reforms that provide them with more choices, more competition, more innovation, higher quality, and lower costs. Instead, Democrat leaders have worked in secret to write a bill that does exactly the opposite." Karen Ignagni, the president of the America's Health Insurance Plans trade group that lobbies Congress on behalf of insurance companies, called the proposal "a missed opportunity." Ignagni predicted "families and employers will not be able to afford coverage and health care costs will rise at a rate much faster than the overall economy is able to sustain." In addition to the Wellpoint study, AHIP says three other reports, including one by PricewaterhouseCoopers, project that current legislative proposals will cause premiums to increase "far faster and higher" than they would under the current system. Voters probably won't like getting socked with higher premiums if the reforms pass. But most of them won't be that surprised. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed 57 percent of voters nationwide expect the reforms that were supposed to reduce costs actually will make them go up. Also, 53 percent of voters expect the quality of healthcare in the post-reform era will get worse. © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #143 October 30, 2009 Quote CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so. Penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, would raise $161 billion over that time-frame. That brings the net cost of the bill to $894 billion through 2019, CBO said. House Democrats have seized on that net cost figure to claim that their bill is below President Barack Obama's upper limit which he set for health-care legislation of $900 billion. The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday. The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO. CBO also said the House bill would not add to the deficit in the first decade beyond 2019--a key condition for support from fiscally conservative House Democrats. CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, in a Thursday letter to House Democratic Chairmen, cautioned that his estimates are preliminary and "subject to substantial uncertainty." House leaders capped weeks of internal negotiations among Democrats today by unveiling the sweeping legislation. They aim to bring the bill to a vote by the full House by the end of next week. The bill would create exchanges where people who do not have access to health insurance from their employer could buy coverage. It would create a government- sponsored plan to compete with private plans. The bill would reduce the number of uninsured in the U.S. by 36 million by 2019. By that time, 30 million people would be covered through the insurance exchanges, of which 6 million would be covered by the public option. An expansion in eligibility rules for the Medicaid program would bring an additional 15 million enrollees to Medicaid by 2019, CBO said. -By Martin Vaughan, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9244; martin.vaughan@ dowjones.com "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #144 October 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Hmm! Once again, RepublicanReports shows a different result than every other polling organization! Best listen exclusively to them and ignore all other facts, lest you hear something that conflicts with your biases. Well, thier history is better and newer than what you have posted Yea, all is rosey. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrosecolored.htm http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrovecolored.htm This one, to me, defines conservatism: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushsheep.htm That's my new screensaver why? cause that it the side of a sheep you usually see?? dont forget your tingley's!! Is that the best you can do? You're slipping I am from farm country. The only better would be if you were the one in Des Moines caught putting a skirt on the woolly animal. That wasn't you, was it?? No, Rush, the only one here who knows of that alleged incident is you...... put it together. So, let me see if I got this right. You post these three little cartoons and get yourself a cutsied warm tingley feeling all over, and then get a drive by post in support, and you claim the high road of wit?? Did I get that about right? Aaaaaaaaallllllllllllrrrrrrrrriiiiiggghhhty then."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #145 October 30, 2009 QuoteDid I get that about right? But...but...but....but You're a racist!!!!You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #146 October 30, 2009 Quote Tort reform, reduce malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums. OK, every time someone makes this claim I have asked what savings would result. Then all we get is silence. So how about it Marc. What savings would result?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #147 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuote I would agree that 3 of 4 people would be happy to opt out for a private plan if they could also opt out of the increased tax load to support the plan they don't want to participate in but that would be impossible Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums. Very true; be it public or private, care for those that can not afford it is going to be subsidized. Just a matter of by what mechanism - taxes or premiums. On the matter of opting out to buy private; in a perfect world where the government regulates and acts as a clearinghouse, every private plan you could imagine would be available. There is really no longer a need for employer involvement. It is a layer of bureacracy that adds no value and can be completely eliminated. Employers will fight this tooth and nail because they want to be able to dangle a carrot in front of prospective employees, but it is smoke and mirrors. It should make no difference to them whether they give you $1K per month in benefits or $1K per month to spend at the clearinghouse. What they will not say out loud is that they want to preserve their ability to use current provisions (aka loopholes) that allow them to exempt themselves from many of the mandates and levies which direct sold and small group consumers must pay. Eliminate these loopholes available to large employers, political subdivisions and other self-insured entities; and the business gets much simpler to administer. There are not many primary variables - deductible, coinsurance and copays, out-of-pocket max, and network selection. Make your selections from that matrix, identify your level of tax credits/subsidy - and you have a plan and a price. Opting out should not even be on the table. Guarantee issue and opting out should be mutually exclusive. If there is going to be a penalty - then why not just use the money to pick a plan? This really could be made very simple, well, simpler than today's mess anyway. Unfortunately, everybody is going to get some element that goes against their special interest, and some are going to fight it vigorously and selfishly to the detriment of all (aka politics as usual)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #148 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Tort reform, reduce malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums. OK, every time someone makes this claim I have asked what savings would result. Then all we get is silence. So how about it Marc. What savings would result?Everybody has thier ideas. No differnent than everybody saying a gov option will save money. Only difference we are pretty sure it will not. Tort reform at least has the chance to lower insurance costs if settlements have a limit"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #149 October 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Tort reform, reduce malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums. OK, every time someone makes this claim I have asked what savings would result. Then all we get is silence. So how about it Marc. What savings would result?Everybody has thier ideas. No differnent than everybody saying a gov option will save money. Only difference we are pretty sure it will not. Tort reform at least has the chance to lower insurance costs if settlements have a limit Numbers, Marc, hard numbers, not more right wing waffle like the tripe you just posted about jobs. HOW MUCH WILL IT SAVE?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #150 October 30, 2009 Quote Quote CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so. Penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, would raise $161 billion over that time-frame. That brings the net cost of the bill to $894 billion through 2019, CBO said. House Democrats have seized on that net cost figure to claim that their bill is below President Barack Obama's upper limit which he set for health-care legislation of $900 billion. The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday. The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO. CBO also said the House bill would not add to the deficit in the first decade beyond 2019--a key condition for support from fiscally conservative House Democrats. CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, in a Thursday letter to House Democratic Chairmen, cautioned that his estimates are preliminary and "subject to substantial uncertainty." House leaders capped weeks of internal negotiations among Democrats today by unveiling the sweeping legislation. They aim to bring the bill to a vote by the full House by the end of next week. The bill would create exchanges where people who do not have access to health insurance from their employer could buy coverage. It would create a government- sponsored plan to compete with private plans. The bill would reduce the number of uninsured in the U.S. by 36 million by 2019. By that time, 30 million people would be covered through the insurance exchanges, of which 6 million would be covered by the public option. An expansion in eligibility rules for the Medicaid program would bring an additional 15 million enrollees to Medicaid by 2019, CBO said. -By Martin Vaughan, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9244; martin.vaughan@ dowjones.com You're right. That IS a shocker. Congress actually proposed a bill that would more than pay for itself. Agree with the plan or not, that's quite an accomplishment for the CongressThis just in, as an homage to the "good old days" of a Republican run Congress and White House, John Boehner unveils the new Republican Health care strategy at a 2010 Election Campaign fund raiser which includes, but is not limited to, driving around around in pickup trucks and throwing out wads of cash.I know sniping and running is a low blow, but this IS Speaker's corner and I have a boogie to get to. Happy Halloween everyone! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
