CBO scores the Senate Health Bill

[GG]

That's speculation, though, not fact. Two levels of speculation, in fact: the existence of the "Trojan Horse" (though I suspect the costs are grossly underestimated, since the plan does nothing to control health care costs themselves), and the idea that the public option will be mandated to cover it (this adminstration, I think, would be more likely to just raise the subsidy of the plan and fund it with some tax increase somewhere, as befits this administration's populist attitudes).

 

It's speculation based on the projected intersection of demographic and cost trendlines. Unless aliens come out of the sky to change those trajectories, that speculation is as close to 100% fact as actuarily allowable.

[Magox]

The reality is that the government almost always underestimates costs of entitlement programs.

 

For an example:

 

"the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the Medicare program in its entirety would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion -- off by nearly a factor of 10."

 

now just apply that to the estimates of what the house and senate bills are suppose to cost, which would put it somewhere close to $10-12 trillion.

 

and lets not forget about medicaid, lets not forget that medicaid was suppose to be a temporary program back in 1965, by the time we got to 1985 the program grew to account for eight percent of state's budgets. By 2005, Medicaid consumed 22 percent of state's budgets, and that, combined with federal spending, amounted to $330 billion. What makes things even worse is that the federal government pays for over half of the bill.

 

I think it's safe to say, that this bill will not only lower the cost of skyrocketing premiums for those who don't receive subsidized insurance, but it will add tremendously to our over burdened national debt.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's hair-splitting bull ****. If there is a mandate to buy insurance, and there is a public option available, then the public option is an option under the mandate to buy. And if there were no subsidized public option, you couldn't realistically have a mandate, since in the absence of the public option any mandate amounts to a blank check to the health insurance industry to gouge consumers. You can say they're not tightly related, but it's a connerish statement of idiocy to say they have absolutely zero relation to each other.

 

There is no "subsidized" public option being considered. That's why the CBO says it's not going to be all that cheaper. If you want to say "IF the bill is completely changed and reversed to something it is not at all now..." then you can say virtually anything in the bill is directly linked. The initial funding by law has to be paid back and all costs by law have to be paid by premiums.

[Alaska Darin]

There is no "subsidized" public option being considered. That's why the CBO says it's not going to be all that cheaper.

So you're saying if the government subsidized it the CBO would say it's cheaper?

[IDBillzFan]

You understand that any mandate has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with whether or not there is a public option, don't you? Apparently not. Do you even understand the idea of a public option? Do you understand public option portion of the bill? The exchanges? The meaning of the word "option"? Who is eligible?

You are right, the mandate has nothing to do with the public option. That said, Nancy's bill is very clear: you either get insurance, or you get fined and face possible prison time. That's the fact, jack. And the public option is the handout that essentially says "There are no excuses. You must get something."

 

So yeah, they're different things. And yet, it's an infringement on our freedoms to be MADE to BUY something simply for being an American.

 

In the end, we'll just need to see what embarrassing piece of legislation gets watered down and passed next year. All we're doing now is discussing various bills which, on their own merits, would never, ever have a chance in hell of passing.

[Magox]

That's why the CBO says it's not going to be all that cheaper.

Interesting point you bring up, I seem to remember discussing this with you over and over that the main problem for skyrocketing insurance premiums wasn't due to lack of competition, as evidenced in the low profit margins, remember that? Now that the "public option" does provide competiton, according to the CBO, people who don't qualify for subsidies overall will pay either a "negligible" difference, or considerably higher premiums.

 

How can that be? After all, we were told over and over that the only way to bring down premiums was to provide competition and keep these evil insurance companies in check.

 

Hmmm, so much for that fallacy, and I might add that it pretty much undermines anything else that this administration says regarding Health Care Reform.

[Kelly the Dog]

Interesting point you bring up, I seem to remember discussing this with you over and over that the main problem for skyrocketing insurance premiums wasn't due to lack of competition, as evidenced in the low profit margins, remember that? Now that the "public option" does provide competiton, according to the CBO, people who don't qualify for subsidies overall will pay either a "negligible" difference, or considerably higher premiums.

 

How can that be? After all, we were told over and over that the only way to bring down premiums was to provide competition and keep these evil insurance companies in check.

 

Hmmm, so much for that fallacy, and I might add that it pretty much undermines anything else that this administration says regarding Health Care Reform.

 

It's for several reasons

 

-- because they gutted the public option in compromise,

 

-- didnt go with the Medicare rates plus 5% but rather negotiable rates (an enormous difference because the CBO thinks the new negotiated rates will; not be deals when others think they will be substantially better deals),

 

-- because the CBO's figures include the payback of the money the government puts out for the initial installment,

 

-- because the CBO figures the private insurers WILL cut their premiums because of the public option so the public option won't seem like such a huge difference,

 

-- and, I have to go back and look at the language but I think a lot of the CBOs averages are not what you think they are: Meaning, most people are going to pay less, especially the lower income people, but those that pay the same or maybe even higher (because there will be A, B and C levels of the public option, the AVERAGE savings goes significantly down.

[Kelly the Dog]

So you're saying if the government subsidized it the CBO would say it's cheaper?

 

Actually, if the government subsidized it the CBO would (rightly) say it's a lot more expensive for the government and simultaneously say it's a lot cheaper for the consumer.

[Kelly the Dog]

You are right, the mandate has nothing to do with the public option. That said, Nancy's bill is very clear: you either get insurance, or you get fined and face possible prison time. That's the fact, jack. And the public option is the handout that essentially says "There are no excuses. You must get something."

 

So yeah, they're different things. And yet, it's an infringement on our freedoms to be MADE to BUY something simply for being an American.

 

In the end, we'll just need to see what embarrassing piece of legislation gets watered down and passed next year. All we're doing now is discussing various bills which, on their own merits, would never, ever have a chance in hell of passing.

All laws are made because the public won't do it on their own. AD is exactly right when he says that the only reason most people are alive is because it's illegal to kill them.

 

I have mixed feelings about a mandate. The unsuspecting public, like you, is paying a thousand or more dollars per year out of your own pocket/premiums to pay for people that don't have insurance. They get for free what you not only pay for but you have to pay a significant amount for them to get it for free. Why aren't you complaining about that? Making them pay for it, like we make people pay for car insurance, will save you a little money, too. If they don't want it, they pay a small fine to pay for when they do want it, when they go to the ER and it's free. Or get treatment and then don't pay the hospital bills.

[Magox]

It's for several reasons

 

-- 1. because they gutted the public option in compromise,

 

-- 2. didnt go with the Medicare rates plus 5% but rather negotiable rates (an enormous difference because the CBO thinks the new negotiated rates will; not be deals when others think they will be substantially better deals),

 

-- 3. because the CBO's figures include the payback of the money the government puts out for the initial installment,

 

-- 4. because the CBO figures the private insurers WILL cut their premiums because of the public option so the public option won't seem like such a huge difference,

 

-- 5. and, I have to go back and look at the language but I think a lot of the CBOs averages are not what you think they are: Meaning, most people are going to pay less, especially the lower income people, but those that pay the same or maybe even higher (because there will be A, B and C levels of the public option, the AVERAGE savings goes significantly down.

1. You can make all the excuses you want Dog, but once this bill passes, it doesn't change the fact that THERE WILL BE an exchange, and it WILL compete with private insurers, and the BOTTOM LINE is that it WON'T bring down premiums (unless you qualify for government subsidies), which WAS the WHOLE premise of the argument you and I had months ago.

 

2. Same as above, the argument you and the W.H made was that competiton through the "public option" would drive down rates. I told you, that the profit margins were so small, and I specifically remember telling you that sure, competition could bring down premiums, but to a very small degree, once again based on the Profit margins. So your point regarding tying it to medicare rates is a moot point, because the whole basis of our argument was regarding competition on a level playing field.

 

3. huh I'm sure you have an idea of what you are talking about, explain it to me in more detail.

 

4. They said it would factor in, but as they said, it would be a "negligible" difference, which was specifically outlined in my original post. Which of course further supports my argument, as I have said ALL ALONG.

 

5. Give me a break, I know the gist of this bill more than you think. I know the break down. I broke it down accurately in my original post, and feel free to go over it and correct it if you see something wrong.

 

In a nutshell, if you work for a small or large company, according to the CBO, your premiums will be basically the same. If you qualify for government subsidies then you will pay less and the further you fall below the FPL the more you receive, the higher you qualify above the FPL the less you will receive.

 

If you are an individual who is looking to buy insurance, not provided to you through your work, according to the CBO you will pay as much as 30% higher than the status quo, but in average you will pay between 10-13% higher.

 

Which is what I said in my original post.

[IDBillzFan]

All laws are made because the public won't do it on their own. AD is exactly right when he says that the only reason most people are alive is because it's illegal to kill them.

 

I have mixed feelings about a mandate. The unsuspecting public, like you, is paying a thousand or more dollars per year out of your own pocket/premiums to pay for people that don't have insurance. They get for free what you not only pay for but you have to pay a significant amount for them to get it for free. Why aren't you complaining about that? Making them pay for it, like we make people pay for car insurance, will save you a little money, too. If they don't want it, they pay a small fine to pay for when they do want it, when they go to the ER and it's free. Or get treatment and then don't pay the hospital bills.

I actually DO complain about having to pick up the tab for people who are too lazy to take care of themselves. The amount of taxes we pay in California just for anchor babies is enough to make my skull split in two, and if I could pick up my business and move it to another state I would. So either way, I'm paying. And as a small business owner, there is NO WAY IN HELL this, or any other of these bills, is going to save me "a little money." It's only going to cost me more because everytime a lightbulb turns on in someone's head in DC, the answer is to tax "the rich" because it's just a drop in the bucket.

 

The bottom line is this: to the Democrats in power, it seems the ONLY option is a public option. They refuse to consider any other options, except for maybe the "trigger" option which we both know will have more booby traps built into it than anyone can imagine.

 

We're not going to agree on this because I have, and always will, take care of myself, regardless of my income, and it is impossible for me to accept that most people can not do the same. Yes, I know, some people need help, but not 35 million, or whatever the number is this week . And the idea that "Well, you've been paying all along anyway, so why would you care" is just ridiculous. I don't like paying now, I won't like paying in the future, and by MAKING everyone buy something simply because they were born in this country is pathetic.

[Kelly the Dog]

1. You can make all the excuses you want Dog, but once this bill passes, it doesn't change the fact that THERE WILL BE an exchange, and it WILL compete with private insurers, and the BOTTOM LINE is that it WON'T bring down premiums (unless you qualify for government subsidies), which WAS the WHOLE premise of the argument you and I had months ago.

 

2. Same as above, the argument you and the W.H made was that competiton through the "public option" would drive down rates. I told you, that the profit margins were so small, and I specifically remember telling you that sure, competition could bring down premiums, but to a very small degree, once again based on the Profit margins. So your point regarding tying it to medicare rates is a moot point, because the whole basis of our argument was regarding competition on a level playing field.

 

3. huh I'm sure you have an idea of what you are talking about, explain it to me in more detail.

 

4. They said it would factor in, but as they said, it would be a "negligible" difference, which was specifically outlined in my original post. Which of course further supports my argument, as I have said ALL ALONG.

 

5. Give me a break, I know the gist of this bill more than you think. I know the break down. I broke it down accurately in my original post, and feel free to go over it and correct it if you see something wrong.

 

In a nutshell, if you work for a small or large company, according to the CBO, your premiums will be basically the same. If you qualify for government subsidies then you will pay less and the further you fall below the FPL the more you receive, the higher you qualify above the FPL the less you will receive.

 

If you are an individual who is looking to buy insurance, not provided to you through your work, according to the CBO you will pay as much as 30% higher than the status quo, but in average you will pay between 10-13% higher.

 

Which is what I said in my original post.

You totally disregard all kinds of numbers and factors, and right now, I really don't have time to get into all of them. Hopefully I will soon, but I have a million things going on which is why I havent been here much. Half of the new people getting insurance (the non-group ones that are getting subsidized because they don't make enough to afford it) will be paying 55-60% LESS. The other half, that makes too much to get help but will pay their own way will, on average, pay 10-13% more, but because of the law there are limits to how much they can be charged, how much out of pocket, the fact they cant be dumped if they get sick, etc, all of which makes it a huge bargain in the long run, even if they are paying 10% more per premium than they would be without legislation.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434

[Kelly the Dog]

I actually DO complain about having to pick up the tab for people who are too lazy to take care of themselves. The amount of taxes we pay in California just for anchor babies is enough to make my skull split in two, and if I could pick up my business and move it to another state I would. So either way, I'm paying. And as a small business owner, there is NO WAY IN HELL this, or any other of these bills, is going to save me "a little money." It's only going to cost me more because everytime a lightbulb turns on in someone's head in DC, the answer is to tax "the rich" because it's just a drop in the bucket.

 

The bottom line is this: to the Democrats in power, it seems the ONLY option is a public option. They refuse to consider any other options, except for maybe the "trigger" option which we both know will have more booby traps built into it than anyone can imagine.

 

We're not going to agree on this because I have, and always will, take care of myself, regardless of my income, and it is impossible for me to accept that most people can not do the same. Yes, I know, some people need help, but not 35 million, or whatever the number is this week . And the idea that "Well, you've been paying all along anyway, so why would you care" is just ridiculous. I don't like paying now, I won't like paying in the future, and by MAKING everyone buy something simply because they were born in this country is pathetic.

Because of what it has been diluted down to, and because of the amount of people eligible in the bills, and because of its restrictions, the public option has become less and less important in the legislation. People on both sides spend 90% of their time talking about 10% of the issue.

[Magox]

You totally disregard all kinds of numbers and factors, and right now, I really don't have time to get into all of them. Hopefully I will soon, but I have a million things going on which is why I havent been here much. Half of the new people getting insurance (the non-group ones that are getting subsidized because they don't make enough to afford it) will be paying 55-60% LESS. The other half, that makes too much to get help but will pay their own way will, on average, pay 10-13% more, but because of the law there are limits to how much they can be charged, how much out of pocket, the fact they cant be dumped if they get sick, etc, all of which makes it a huge bargain in the long run, even if they are paying more per 10% more per premium than they would be without legislation.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434

Good luck with what you have been doing.

 

But back to our discussion, nothing you stated is different than what I have already said or knew.

 

What numbers and factors do I disregard?

 

I understand why the premiums are higher, it is due to having to cover people with pre existing conditions, which is a point that I argued on numerous occasions. I also understand that the CBO claims that the level of coverage will be slightly more from the "public option" than from some private insurers.

 

on average, pay 10-13% more, but because of the law there are limits to how much they can be charged, how much out of pocket, the fact they cant be dumped if they get sick, etc, all of which makes it a huge bargain in the long run, even if they are paying more per 10% more per premium than they would be without legislation.

 

explain to me how this will be a "huge bargain in the long run, even if they are paying more per 10%"?

 

Either way, what you and I discussed was the competition issue. I argued that competition would have a tiny impact, that was what you and I had discussed.

[GG]

Because of what it has been diluted down to, and because of the amount of people eligible in the bills, and because of its restrictions, the public option has become less and less important in the legislation. People on both sides spend 90% of their time talking about 10% of the issue.

 

Because people are rightly concerned about the future impact of providing expensive coverage to people without realistic means to pay for the added cost.

 

You guys are arguing accounting allocations, and not the actual costs and revenues.

[IDBillzFan]

Because of what it has been diluted down to, and because of the amount of people eligible in the bills, and because of its restrictions, the public option has become less and less important in the legislation. People on both sides spend 90% of their time talking about 10% of the issue.

Which is funny because 90% of the content of the bills in circulation address less than 10% of the issues they're trying to reform.

[Kelly the Dog]

Which is funny because 90% of the content of the bills in circulation address less than 10% of the issues they're trying to reform.

I agree. But it's everyone's fault equally: the left, the right, the media and the public. No one is being honest about it, few really understand it. I have said repeatedly that this bill only addresses a certain element of the health care issue. GG and DC and AD have been right all along, this is Health Insurance Reform not Health Care Reform, and it's only or mostly concerned with getting insurance coverage addressed and changed and not the cost. But that, IMO, is all they can do right now because of the opposition and the myriad of different arguments for how the system must be changed. The next thing to be addressed should be the Health Insurance COST, which is out of control, then the Health CARE problems, then the Health CARE COST. Those are four seperate concepts. Sure it would be nice if they were all dealt with at once because they are all intricately connected, but that is not feasible in the current climate. The Dems are getting what they can get done now and hopefully will get at the three other equally important issues sooner than later.

[jjamie12]

This editorial seems to be right.

 

Journal editorial

 

Most relevant piece (in my mind):

 

CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.

 

CBO is confirming that new coverage mandates will drive premiums higher. But Democrats are declaring victory, claiming that these higher insurance prices don't count because they will be offset by new government subsidies. About 57% of the people who buy insurance through the bill's new "exchanges" that will supplant today's individual market will qualify for subsidies that cover about two-thirds of the total premium.

 

So the bill will increase costs but it will then disguise those costs by transferring them to taxpayers from individuals. Higher costs can be conjured away because they're suddenly on the government balance sheet.

 

This seems to run parallel to the work that Magox has done on this. KTFABD -- Can you comment on why you believe this not to be the case? It really seems to me that this bill did (will do) the opposite of its intention. Namely, it will actually INCREASE costs of insurance, not decrease them, but it will appear to be cheaper for some because taxpayers will be footing a large chunk of the bill. Are you in agreement with that?

[Kelly the Dog]

This editorial seems to be right.

 

Journal editorial

 

Most relevant piece (in my mind):

 

 

 

 

 

This seems to run parallel to the work that Magox has done on this. KTFABD -- Can you comment on why you believe this not to be the case? It really seems to me that this bill did (will do) the opposite of its intention. Namely, it will actually INCREASE costs of insurance, not decrease them, but it will appear to be cheaper for some because taxpayers will be footing a large chunk of the bill. Are you in agreement with that?

That is exactly why the right and conservatives should want the public option. Of course the costs are going to go up because the insurance companies are going to have to pay huge amounts more to the hospitals and doctors because of the new laws. And they are going to claim poverty and gouge the public and without the public option there is nothing to stop them and nothing to reign it in even though they will have 30 million more people they can rip off. Right now they make too much, spend too much, pay out too much to things that have nothing to do with care, waste too much, pay themselves too much, etc. Now that they won't be able to weed out people they don't want to pay for, and won't be able to !@#$ in the ass when they are forced to pay what the promised, and won't be able to raise their rates and out of pocket expenses, they are going to take it out on you and me. The worst that can happen as far as cost to Americans goes is to pass this bill with no public option. Your rates will rise.

[Alaska Darin]

The Dems are getting what they can get done now and hopefully will get at the three other equally important issues sooner than later.

Solving the wrong problem with the wrong solution ought to be the official dummycrat mantra.