CBO says health care bill costs $829B over decade

[MrJayremmie]

The Baucus bill that is. Interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

And here is a description of the bill. (As of Sept. 16th that is, may be a bit changed)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1924252,00.html?cnn=yes

Not my favorite bill.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Considering thiose prognostics tend to be ultra conservative, the true figures make me wonder what a bankrupt country will look like on the international markets.

 

[barfo]

Not my favorite bill either, not by a long shot, but it does seem to be an improvement nonetheless over the current situation.

barfo

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Tobacco users can get charged 1.5 times more than others? Why not do this for soda drinkers or people who eat bacon?

 

[julius]

Considering thiose prognostics tend to be ultra conservative, the true figures make me wonder what a bankrupt country will look like on the international markets.

The international Markets already know what we look like.

 

[barfo]

Tobacco users can get charged 1.5 times more than others? Why not do this for soda drinkers or people who eat bacon?

Because bacon and soda taste good, like a cigarette should.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Tobacco users can get charged 1.5 times more than others? Why not do this for soda drinkers or people who eat bacon?

Because I like soda.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I don't like soda or bacon. gross. tax it!

 

[blazerboy30]

Not my favorite bill either, not by a long shot, but it does seem to be an improvement nonetheless over the current situation.

barfo

How so?

 

[blazerboy30]

Some quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations:

assume 350 million citizens in the US.
Current number of citizens without coverage: 30million
Proposed coverage: 94%
Proposed number not covered: 21 million
Additional people covered by plan: 9million

Estimated cost over 10 years: 830billion

cost per new person covered per 10 years: 830billion / 9million = 92.2k

cost per new person insured per year: $9.2k


Am I WAY off on something here? If not, how does this even pass the "laugh" test? $9.2k per person, per year?

Again, we're better off as tax payers to just continue paying for the uninsured as their problems arise.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

well, it will fine the underemployed and underpaid american worker who doesn't get healthcare!

 

[barfo]

How so?

First, a disclaimer: I have not read the Baucus bill itself.

Co-ops and exchanges: this is good, although a little clunky in design, it will allow people to buy insurance at a reasonable rate when their employer doesn't provide coverage. I like that there will be multiple plans available, and that those plans will have various defined minimum coverage levels. I like that there is a cheap high-deductable plan for the under-25 crowd.

Making pre-existing conditions go away is a good thing. The higher rate for tobacco smokers, while a bit heavy-handed, is nevertheless useful social engineering. Requiring people to have insurance is a good thing in my book (although I'm not at all crazy about the particular implementation here).

I'd have been in favor of more sweeping changes, but of course that's not really realistic for our system of government. This is a decent set of incremental changes.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Some quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations:

assume 350 million citizens in the US.
Current number of citizens without coverage: 30million
Proposed coverage: 94%
Proposed number not covered: 21 million
Additional people covered by plan: 9million

Estimated cost over 10 years: 830billion

cost per new person covered per 10 years: 830billion / 9million = 92.2k

cost per new person insured per year: $9.2k


Am I WAY off on something here? If not, how does this even pass the "laugh" test? $9.2k per person, per year?

Again, we're better off as tax payers to just continue paying for the uninsured as their problems arise.

You are off somewhat, anyway:

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million, leaving about 25 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the proposal, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent.

You say 9 million more covered; CBO says 29 million more.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

You are off somewhat, anyway:



You say 9 million more covered; CBO says 29 million more.

barfo

Strange. Your quote says it would reduce the uninsured by 29million, leaving 25million uninsured. 29+25 = 54million currently uninsured? That doesn't seem to agree with any previously used numbers for the uninsured.

 

[hasoos]

Tobacco users can get charged 1.5 times more than others? Why not do this for soda drinkers or people who eat bacon?

Because Bacon is an inalienable right!

 

[barfo]

Strange. Your quote says it would reduce the uninsured by 29million, leaving 25million uninsured. 29+25 = 54million currently uninsured? That doesn't seem to agree with any previously used numbers for the uninsured.

That number is for 2019, not today. I assume it is a projection of what the situation would be then if there are no changes to the current scheme, although I haven't read the document carefully enough to verify that.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The choice of headline on the linked news story (and this thread) is interesting. Here's another choice for a headline about the same report:

Health-Care Bill Wouldn't Raise Deficit, Report Says

They sort of give two different impressions, don't they?

The report actually says that the bill would reduce the deficit.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

The choice of headline on the linked news story (and this thread) is interesting. Here's another choice for a headline about the same report:

Health-Care Bill Wouldn't Raise Deficit, Report Says

They sort of give two different impressions, don't they?

The report actually says that the bill would reduce the deficit.

barfo

I noticed this too.

I'm guessing their analysis shows the proposed increases in taxes pay for the $830billion cost. Either way, it still seems to say that overall healthcare spending (premiums or taxes) will go up.

 

[barfo]

I noticed this too.

I'm guessing their analysis shows the proposed increases in taxes pay for the $830billion cost. Either way, it still seems to say that overall healthcare spending (premiums or taxes) will go up.

That's basically correct. There are several pieces to the revenue & cost reduction side that together offset the spending. I would think overall spending would be going up, since we'll be covering more people, and also having some new mandates like not being able to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, which will presumably raise the cost. The CBO says it aint their damn job to compute national healthcare expenditures, however, so the answer to that question isn't provided here.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

That's basically correct. There are several pieces to the revenue & cost reduction side that together offset the spending. I would think overall spending would be going up, since we'll be covering more people, and also having some new mandates like not being able to exclude those with pre-existing conditions, which will presumably raise the cost. The CBO says it aint their damn job to compute national healthcare expenditures, however, so the answer to that question isn't provided here.

barfo

Amazingly, there are still Obama lemmings who think these plans will make overall healthcare spending decrease.

 

[PapaG]

We're in 2019 now with this bill.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans are out of work in 2009, and troop casualties are at an all-time high in Afghanistan, our "necessary war".

Nice priorities, Obama.

 

[barfo]

Amazingly, there are still Obama lemmings who think these plans will make overall healthcare spending decrease.

What difference does that make, really? You can easily find people who believe things vastly more absurd than that.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

What difference does that make, really? You can easily find people who believe things vastly more absurd than that.

barfo

Sure. Like Obama would bring "Hope and Change".

Little hope, and a lot of change.

 

[Denny Crane]

I noticed this too.

I'm guessing their analysis shows the proposed increases in taxes pay for the $830billion cost. Either way, it still seems to say that overall healthcare spending (premiums or taxes) will go up.

They're not covering all of the uninsured.

There's a dubious $400B cut in medicare spending that offsets the real losses.

Interesting video:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdkUaGkUkU

And discussion of it at RCP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._the_more_confusing_things_ive_ever_read.html

CNS News: Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Voters Back Obama Over Republicans on Health Care, Poll Finds

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091008/pl_bloomberg/aw2pami0gqru

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Months of Republican attacks on President Barack Obama’s health-care proposals appear to have hurt the party, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

The survey found 64 percent of voters disapproving of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their jobs, with 25 percent approving. Also, 53 percent had an unfavorable opinion of the party in general, while 25 percent rated it favorably.

The performance of Democratic lawmakers was disapproved of by 56 percent, with 33 expressing approval. For the party in general, 46 percent expressed disapproval, 38 percent approval.

Asked who they trusted to do a better job on the health- care issue, 47 percent said Obama, 31 percent said the Republicans.

And Denny, this article says his approval is at 50%.

 

[Denny Crane]

Voters Back Obama Over Republicans on Health Care, Poll Finds

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091008/pl_bloomberg/aw2pami0gqru



And Denny, this article says his approval is at 50%.

From your own article:

At the same time, voters disapproved of the way Obama was handling health care, 51 percent to 41 percent. His health-care plan was opposed by 47 percent, supported by 40 percent.

And the generic ballot is rather interesting:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

RCP Average, unnamed democrat beats unnamed republican by 2.5, but republican wins by 4 if counting likely voters.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I heard that when people are asked if they support Obama's plan, the majority say no. But when they are actually told exactly what he is proposing, but made to sound like its another plan, the majority support that plan. There is just a ton of misinformation out there.

Most people are going to disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare, that is fine. But compared to how the other side is handling it? Those numbers are incredible, no?

 

[Denny Crane]

I heard that when people are asked if they support Obama's plan, the majority say no. But when they are actually told exactly what he is proposing, but made to sound like its another plan, the majority support that plan. There is just a ton of misinformation out there.

Most people are going to disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare, that is fine. But compared to how the other side is handling it? Those numbers are incredible, no?

What's incredible is that Obama's squandered his political capital, high approval ratings from people in both parties, and the chance to work across party lines to get things done in a bipartisan manner.

My take on his disapproval ratings rising (from 10% to 40%) is that he's losing his own base - his ATM machine, the MoveOn.org folks. Specifically because we're still in Iraq, Guantanimo isn't closed, no investigations of the previous administration, etc.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think people support the idea of serious health care reform, just not the current proposal or the way it's been handled. I also feel that if the lefties force a relatively unpopular plan down our throats as they propose doing, there will be hell to pay at the mid terms to the extent that he could lose the House (but a very small chance).

 

[maxiep]

I think people support the idea of serious health care reform, just not the current proposal or the way it's been handled. I also feel that if the lefties force a relatively unpopular plan down our throats as they propose doing, there will be heel to pay at the mid terms to the extent that he could lose the House (but a very small chance).

I think the calculus is that government run health care is such a game changer, the Democrats are willing to sacrifice 2010 and 2012 for decades of permanent rule and structurally shifting the entire country to the left. The minute you bring life and death to government, the discussion isn't whether or not the government should be involved, but how much they're going to give you. And that folks, is the ballgame.

I fully expect a public option and I fully expect it to be done via reconciliation. Elections have consequences, and this last one is going to have more consequences than any other in memory.