CBO scores the Senate Health Bill

[/dev/null]

The thing that twists my stomach is one of the most perverse parts of this bill; that we will be taxed for four years BEFORE services are provided. So to your point above, let's assume that in two years we're able to get this repealed or rendered ineffective. One would assume that the taxes collected to that point would be returned. But alas, we all know that'll never happen. That money will be gone, and unfortunately used to fund something else that will require the taxes to continue being collected.

 

All of this is just horrible governing.

 

Change you can believe in

[John Adams]

The thing that twists my stomach is one of the most perverse parts of this bill; that we will be taxed for four years BEFORE services are provided. So to your point above, let's assume that in two years we're able to get this repealed or rendered ineffective. One would assume that the taxes collected to that point would be returned. But alas, we all know that'll never happen. That money will be gone, and unfortunately used to fund something else that will require the taxes to continue being collected.

 

All of this is just horrible governing.

 

Thank you. I now understand the distinction between comedy and farce.

[IDBillzFan]

Chains you can believe in.

Fixed that.

[Magox]

There's more.

 

I've talked about this a few times, regarding not only the tremendous costs that are going to have to be doled out by the government to pay for these massive health insurance subsidies but also the heavy burden it will put on many States across the U.S to share this cost.

 

The governors of the nation’s two largest Democratic states are leveling sharp criticism at the Senate health care bill, claiming that it would leave their already financially strapped states even deeper in the hole.

 

New York Democratic Gov. David Paterson and California GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are urging congressional leaders to rework the Medicaid financing in the Senate-passed bill, warning that under that version their states will be crushed by billions in new costs.

 

After the Senate passed the bill in a Christmas Eve vote, Paterson said the expansion would leave New York $1 billion in the lurch. The state faces a $6.8 billion budget shortfall heading into the 2010 fiscal year.

 

“ am deeply troubled that the Senate version of the bill worsens what was already an inequitable situation for New York and I will continue to be an advocate on behalf of New Yorkers to ensure we are treated fairly by this critical federal legislation,” Paterson said in a statement.

 

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Schwarzenegger wrote that the legislation would create a “crushing new burden” for a state with a whopping $20.7 billion budget deficit.

 

“When asked for my support, I was assured that federal legislation would not increase costs to California or include new unfunded mandates,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “Unfortunately, under nearly every scenario we can predict, the federal health care reform legislation being debated would cost California’s General Fund an additional $3 billion to $4 billion annually.”

 

The resistance from the governors of two Democratic megastates underscores the anxieties facing states as they grapple with the prospect of a massive expansion of the Medicaid program.

 

So you figure, between NewYork and California alone, the deficit that they will incur as a result of this health reform bill will be between $4-5 Billion a year. Now you have to figure that they are going to get some sort of sweet heart deal like Ben Nelson did, but I would imagine that this Burden that is being applied by Democratic leadership is going to create deficits between $15-$20 Billion a year across the U.S.

 

How will they pay for it? They will either have to raise taxes or cut spending or both, and in a time that we can't afford it.

 

Talking about Ben Nelson, looks like he's history in 2012, and I'm sure that many of the fools that were pressured by their Liberal compadres to vote for this bill in that live in moderate to red districts are history as well.

If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%. Nelson was reelected to a second Senate term in 2006 with 64% of the vote.

 

Nelson's health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are Strongly Opposed. In Nebraska, opposition is even stronger than it is nationally.

 

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters in the state believe that passage of the legislation will hurt the quality of care, and 62% say it will raise costs.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

When did these CBO forcast suddenly begin to matter? Kind of interesting that we are suddenly caring about long term effects of spending. Change?

[Magox]

When did these CBO forcast suddenly begin to matter? Kind of interesting that we are suddenly caring about long term effects of spending. Change?

The CBO has been wrong on many occasions, most of the time they underestimate the total costs of the programs they score, but they do matter. They matter because it is Congress's non official arbritator of scoring many of these proposals.

 

And in regards to "Kind of interesting that we are suddenly caring about long term effects of spending.", speak for yourself, I've always been extremely concerned about deficit spending and its potential consequences.

[Magox]

The left claims that the $500 Billion in Medicare cuts wouldn't cut quality of care.

 

Looks like the CMS disagrees.

 

The Senate plan purports to achieve $483 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years, including $118 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, a program favored by Republicans that distributes Medicare benefits through private providers.

 

Richard Foster, the chief actuary at CMS, raised doubts about whether a significant number of healthcare providers could remain profitable if the proposed Medicare cuts went into effect.

 

“Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries),” Foster wrote.

 

Congress would feel strong pressure from elderly constituents to boost payments if healthcare providers began to drop Medicare beneficiaries.

 

The report supports GOP criticisms that the Democratic health overhaul proposal is flawed because it would cut hundreds of billions from Medicare at a time when its long-term solvency is in question.

 

“Republicans uniformly, without exception, believe that cutting a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, raising a half-trillion in new taxes, and an actual increase in health insurance premiums for everybody else is not reform,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

 

Also, there was some discussion in another thread, in which I stated that IF I had to choose one of the forms of taxes, it would be the excise tax, because it probably would have a positive impact on future health care premiums.

 

CMS did, however, give the Senate Democrats some ammunition for talks with the House over a final bill.

 

The repot found a proposed “excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance would have a downward impact on future healthcare cost growth rates.”

 

however

 

The CMS report, however, found the downward cost impact may take years to manifest.

 

Either way, the unions are going to hate hearing this.

[Magox]

Looks like they're at it again

.

 

The White House and congressional leaders are preparing a detailed health care proposal designed to win passage without Republican support if GOP lawmakers fail to embrace bipartisan compromises at President Barack Obama’s summit next week.

 

A senior White House official said Thursday that Democratic negotiators are resolving final differences in House and Senate health bills that passed last year with virtually no Republican help. The White House plans to post the proposals online by Monday morning, three days ahead of the Feb. 25 summit, which GOP leaders are approaching warily.

 

The comments signal that Obama and Congress’ Democratic leaders still plan to use assertive and sometimes controversial parliamentary powers to enact a far-reaching health care bill if no GOP lawmakers get on board. Republicans and conservative activists have denounced such a strategy, and it’s unclear whether enough House and Senate Democrats would back it. Both parties have used the strategy, known as reconciliation, in the past.

 

The "Health Care Summit" Next week is all for show. They are crafting this bill on their own, and to suggest that they are open to GOP ideas are disingenuos at best. They just don't get it.

[Doc]

The left claims that the $500 Billion in Medicare cuts wouldn't cut quality of care.

Forget the $500B in cuts. There is a scheduled 21% cut in Medicare rates coming March 1st. If that goes through, tons of doctors will stop seeing Medicare patients.

 

Looks like they're at it again

 

The "Health Care Summit" Next week is all for show. They are crafting this bill on their own, and to suggest that they are open to GOP ideas are disingenuos at best. They just don't get it.

It is all for show. Barry is trying to get public sentiment against Republicans so he can justify ramming it through. But it's not going to work. However I doubt that will stop them from trying to ram it through. If they make the mistake of doing that, given what happened in Mass, and especially what happened today, it could prove deadly.

[Taro T]

Forget the $500B in cuts. There is a scheduled 21% cut in Medicare rates coming March 1st. If that goes through, tons of doctors will stop seeing Medicare patients.

 

 

It is all for show. Barry is trying to get public sentiment against Republicans so he can justify ramming it through. But it's not going to work. However I doubt that will stop them from trying to ram it through. If they make the mistake of doing that, given what happened in Mass, and especially what happened today, it could prove deadly.

My guess is that after the 1st week in November, they DO ram it through. As long as the current Congress (House & Senate) are in office, it was my understanding that all bills are active until voted down. If the House waits until after the elections to vote on the Senate's bill, can't they approve it when they know the majority of them will be lobbyists? I know Barry will sign it as soon as it crosses his desk.

[Doc]

My guess is that after the 1st week in November, they DO ram it through. As long as the current Congress (House & Senate) are in office, it was my understanding that all bills are active until voted down. If the House waits until after the elections to vote on the Senate's bill, can't they approve it when they know the majority of them will be lobbyists? I know Barry will sign it as soon as it crosses his desk.

These chuckleheads think that they need to pass this POS to GET re-elected.

 

But I could see some voting for it as lame ducks. If they're willing to gamble their lives on it.

[IDBillzFan]

My guess is that after the 1st week in November, they DO ram it through. As long as the current Congress (House & Senate) are in office, it was my understanding that all bills are active until voted down. If the House waits until after the elections to vote on the Senate's bill, can't they approve it when they know the majority of them will be lobbyists? I know Barry will sign it as soon as it crosses his desk.

So Fox is reporting this morning here that Obama is now working on his own health care legislation that is a compromise between the House and Senate bill, and can be attached to a budget bill and approved through reconciliation.

 

I have to admit I find this very confusing. Forget for a minute the debate scheduled for next week. Every day that passes it becomes evident it's just a joke, and this latest news makes that pretty clear. But poll after poll shows that Americans simply do not want what the Senate has been offering. The only people who want it are the far-left freaks. People who have supported and who are up for election in November are getting killed in the polls. It's clear to anyone paying attention that if they ram this through via reconciliation, they're dead in November. And yet they seem bound and determined to get it through at all cdosts.

 

The last time someone was this committed to a bad idea, BF was getting hammered for pickle juice. Makes no sense to me at all. Once you add in his plans to raise taxes on the middle class, it boggles the mind.

[Magox]

So Fox is reporting this morning here that Obama is now working on his own health care legislation that is a compromise between the House and Senate bill, and can be attached to a budget bill and approved through reconciliation.

 

I have to admit I find this very confusing. Forget for a minute the debate scheduled for next week. Every day that passes it becomes evident it's just a joke, and this latest news makes that pretty clear. But poll after poll shows that Americans simply do not want what the Senate has been offering. The only people who want it are the far-left freaks. People who have supported and who are up for election in November are getting killed in the polls. It's clear to anyone paying attention that if they ram this through via reconciliation, they're dead in November. And yet they seem bound and determined to get it through at all cdosts.

 

The last time someone was this committed to a bad idea, BF was getting hammered for pickle juice. Makes no sense to me at all. Once you add in his plans to raise taxes on the middle class, it boggles the mind.

Oh, it's going to get really ugly. Parliamentary reconciliation rules allows members of the Senate to submit as many amendments that they wish to try to pass through. In other words, if the GOP decides to present 100 amendments than they can, and each time they do this, there has to be 20 hours of debate, so it's going to be messy. Not only that, but many of the pieces of legislation don't apply for reconciliation purposes which is meant for budget purposes.

 

A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.[1]

 

A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.[

 

Here is what Reconciliation can be used for, which is under the Byrd Rule:

 

 

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

 

1.if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

2.if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

3.if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

4.if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

5.if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and

6.if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding senator. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

 

Considering that many politicians are fighting to save their political careers and the economy is in the tank, which is what the vast majority of Americans care about, if they decided to do this, they will get obliterated in the polls.

[Taro T]

These chuckleheads think that they need to pass this POS to GET re-elected.

 

But I could see some voting for it as lame ducks. If they're willing to gamble their lives on it.

Pelosi, Reid, & crew definitely still want to push this through. I'm not convinced they have enough votes to get the house to go along w/ the reconcilliation route.

 

Unless something surprising happens in the next 8 months, the Dems will take a bath in November. At that point, I can see the lame ducks being willing to push this through; it can't cost them their jobs after the election and it can get them cushier lobbying jobs.

[Adam]

I love partisan politics....welcome to the DIVIDED States of America

[Nanker]

Oh, it's going to get really ugly. Parliamentary reconciliation rules allows members of the Senate to submit as many amendments that they wish to try to pass through. In other words, if the GOP decides to present 100 amendments than they can, and each time they do this, there has to be 20 hours of debate, so it's going to be messy. Not only that, but many of the pieces of legislation don't apply for reconciliation purposes which is meant for budget purposes.

 

Here is what Reconciliation can be used for, which is under the Byrd Rule:

 

Considering that many politicians are fighting to save their political careers and the economy is in the tank, which is what the vast majority of Americans care about, if they decided to do this, they will get obliterated in the polls.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, and likely I'm not - then the Republicans could - in theory at least - offer up amendments that would say take an equal amount of money that was projected to be spent in a certain way as enumerated in the 4,000 page abortion bill and replace it with an amendment that is a counter proposal for the use of that same amount of money.

This could be a splendid display of fiscal fornication. Each Senator could offer an amendment for each plank of this monstrosity and it would take till then 57th of November to get it to a final vote. I'd like to see an amendment that would require the Speaker of the House to wear a full body condom at all times - all in the name of public health. One more facial surgery and that skin's gonna snap and that could hurt an innocent bystander.

[Adam]

If I'm understanding this correctly, and likely I'm not - then the Republicans could - in theory at least - offer up amendments that would say take an equal amount of money that was projected to be spent in a certain way as enumerated in the 4,000 page abortion bill and replace it with an amendment that is a counter proposal for the use of that same amount of money.

This could be a splendid display of fiscal fornication. Each Senator could offer an amendment for each plank of this monstrosity and it would take till then 57th of November to get it to a final vote. I'd like to see an amendment that would require the Speaker of the House to wear a full body condom at all times - all in the name of public health. One more facial surgery and that skin's gonna snap and that could hurt an innocent bystander.

I would prefer them to offer a counterproposal that actually would get something done. Last I checked, thats the way things were supposed to work. I don't care who gets credit for something, as long as it works- then again, our government likes to bog things down- it helps keep the plebians against each other......

[keepthefaith]

I would prefer them to offer a counterproposal that actually would get something done. Last I checked, thats the way things were supposed to work. I don't care who gets credit for something, as long as it works- then again, our government likes to bog things down- it helps keep the plebians against each other......

 

The big hangup is that Obama and the far left want free health care coverage for the unproductive class at the expense of the productive class. That's what they want, but they just won't come out and say that. They'll never get a Republican to support anything that looks like this and they themselves won't support the Republican ideas that address rising costs because those proposals alone don't provide coverage to their audience. Politically the Dems lose either way on this. They piss off the far left without providing a free public option and they lose the independents and center-left if they pass an expensive to tax payers program that benefits primarily the unproductive class, unions, etc... They'll inflame the right either way which will increase Republican turnout in November.

 

The Dems are too committed to their spend and tax solution to find a truly winning solution.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The big hangup is that Obama and the far left want free health care coverage for the unproductive class at the expense of the productive class.

 

Wow... Somebody is full of themselves and takes themselves & what they do way too seriously.

 

You have the classes ass backwards. It is the other way around. They want free coverage for the productive class (the poor sleps actually doing 90% of the work) at the expense of the unproductive class(the rich sleps that do nothing but tell the poor slep what should be done).

 

Is that so bad. Seems pretty honorable to me. Give the people something that they actually WORK for.

 

 

 

Don't worry, there will be a revolution and you will get schooled on the proper usuage...J/K (not about the above though)...

[Magox]

I would prefer them to offer a counterproposal that actually would get something done. Last I checked, thats the way things were supposed to work. I don't care who gets credit for something, as long as it works- then again, our government likes to bog things down- it helps keep the plebians against each other......

If they would drop the enormity of the subsidized health care and the public option, and focus on cost containment and some of the perceived health insurance abuses such as dropping coverage with those with pre existing coverage, then there would undoubtedly be a bill that could pass. But the Libs don't want to drop "comprehensive" health care, which is code word for subsidized care for millions of Americans. Which we can't afford, look where two out of the three main deficit problems come from, medicare and S.S and now we want to add another humongous entitlement program, financed through massive taxes and mandates from small businesses on an already weak economy.

 

Idealogues that lack good judgement are running this country.