CBO scores the Senate Health Bill

[GG]

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.

 

Except in the real world it doesn't work that way. As you stick the insurance companies with added costs they either pass them on to the policy holders or they go out of business. If it's the first option, then many current policyholders will get priced out and they will either be uninsured or will clamor to get into the government plan. If it's the latter, then you won't have an insurance industry anymore and everyone will have to default to the government plan.

 

That's why I'm against this because I know what will be coming because the commercial framework that is being created by this bill is unsustainable, no matter how good you think your intentions are. I'm sorry, but fixing the insurance industry before you fix health care may sound good, but it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease. The insurance industry simply functions in the cost/revenue environment like any business. But once you limit what it can do on one side of its business without the ability to compensate on the other side, you will slowly squeeze the business out.

 

Look no further than what states did when they thought that the property & casualty insurers were gouging their customers after high payout events - floods, hurricanes. To politicians, there's no such thing as adjusting the premiums to account for more people living in high risk areas. Everyone should be treated equally. Well that doesn't really work in underwriting risk, so private companies exit the states, leaving the taxpayers with the bill. Just keep an eye on Florida next year if there's a really bad hurricane season to see what's in store for the US.

[Alaska Darin]

Except in the real world it doesn't work that way. As you stick the insurance companies with added costs they either pass them on to the policy holders or they go out of business. If it's the first option, then many current policyholders will get priced out and they will either be uninsured or will clamor to get into the government plan. If it's the latter, then you won't have an insurance industry anymore and everyone will have to default to the government plan.

 

That's why I'm against this because I know what will be coming because the commercial framework that is being created by this bill is unsustainable, no matter how good you think your intentions are. I'm sorry, but fixing the insurance industry before you fix health care may sound good, but it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease. The insurance industry simply functions in the cost/revenue environment like any business. But once you limit what it can do on one side of its business without the ability to compensate on the other side, you will slowly squeeze the business out.

 

Look no further than what states did when they thought that the property & casualty insurers were gouging their customers after high payout events - floods, hurricanes. To politicians, there's no such thing as adjusting the premiums to account for more people living in high risk areas. Everyone should be treated equally. Well that doesn't really work in underwriting risk, so private companies exit the states, leaving the taxpayers with the bill. Just keep an eye on Florida next year if there's a really bad hurricane season to see what's in store for the US.

If Pete understood the Butterfly Effect he wouldn't be a liberal.

[Kelly the Dog]

If Pete understood the Butterfly Effect he wouldn't be a liberal.

I surely understand the butterfly effect, thank you very much. I agree and said before they are not addressing three quarters of the problem. No one seems to be willing at all to fix it however, so as I said, they are doing what they can get away with now. I think the insurance companies are screwing the public over in obscene amounts and ways, and are about as honest in their accounting practices as the film industry. Which means they are complete liars even though their costs are indeed high.

[GG]

I surely understand the butterfly effect, thank you very much. I agree and said before they are not addressing three quarters of the problem. No one seems to be willing at all to fix it however, so as I said, they are doing what they can get away with now. I think the insurance companies are screwing the public over in obscene amounts and ways, and are about as honest in their accounting practices as the film industry. Which means they are complete liars even though their costs are indeed high.

 

And you can state that as a fact because you've examined the financial statements of both industries?

[IDBillzFan]

I surely understand the butterfly effect, thank you very much. I agree and said before they are not addressing three quarters of the problem. No one seems to be willing at all to fix it however, so as I said, they are doing what they can get away with now. I think the insurance companies are screwing the public over in obscene amounts and ways, and are about as honest in their accounting practices as the film industry. Which means they are complete liars even though their costs are indeed high.

This is where you lose me. Just because "they are doing what they can get away with now" doesn't mean that what they are doing is NOT going to make things worse, or create new problems that have to be fixed later. So you're all happy to make things worse so long as you can say "Well, at least we're doing SOMETHING! And if we do nothing, things will suck anyway, so lets make things suck more so we can say we've done something historic."

 

It's absolutely maddening. NONE of this makes sense. Not one bit of it.

[Alaska Darin]

I surely understand the butterfly effect, thank you very much.

I don't think you do, otherwise you wouldn't be saying things like "The Democrats are getting done what they can" in relation to this particular abortion.

I agree and said before they are not addressing three quarters of the problem. No one seems to be willing at all to fix it however, so as I said, they are doing what they can get away with now. I think the insurance companies are screwing the public over in obscene amounts and ways, and are about as honest in their accounting practices as the film industry. Which means they are complete liars even though their costs are indeed high.

Your solution is to trade one group of complete liars for another. Somehow I don't see that being a positive.

[Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay]

And guess where the worlds rich and famous go when they need healthcare? Ill give you a hint-not Canada!

[Alaska Darin]

And guess where the worlds rich and famous go when they need healthcare? Ill give you a hint-not Canada!

Ooh, look everyone! Another slogan from our resident regurgitator.

[Magox]

I think the insurance companies are screwing the public over in obscene amounts and ways, and are about as honest in their accounting practices as the film industry. Which means they are complete liars even though their costs are indeed high.

You just don't understand how competition works. Competition has a way of lowering costs, creating efficiency and innovation, which is why the government should make it more feasible for this to flourish. Instead of doing that, they are going to hammer them with more regulations, more taxes on medical equipment, more excise taxes on health insurance plans, more windfall taxes on the overall industry, and not allow them to perform effective risk management practices to lower overall health insurance premiums.

 

If the government wants the insurance companies to cover people with pre existing conditions, what they should do is create a specific exchange that is ONLY for people with pre existing conditions, with limited subsidies and what this would do KTFBD is two things, one it would accomplish the moral objective of covering people with pre existing conditions and two, it would filter out the higher risk clients and shift them to the exchange therefore reducing the overall cost of premiums from the private insurers. This would be the logical solution.

 

Instead KTFBD, they are mandating that they not turn away or drop any client, no matter how risky and expensive it will be for the health insurance company to cover, so naturally those costs will be passed down to the rest of their clients. It's just simple math, nothing tricky.

 

Also, they refuse to add TORT REFORM in the bill, it is clear that this will have an impact, but for some odd reason it's not in the bill. How odd

 

I've looked over state by state and yes, there are some states that have limited competition, and by no big surprise, the states with less competition have the highest profit margins. That isn't a coincidence, thats just how free markets work, so the solution is to allow health insurance companies to compete with each other across state borders. Wouldn't it be more logical to see if this helps reduce costs before we add a huge entitlement program? I know your answer already, but you and I both know that it does make more sense to do this first.

 

Also KTFBD, don't you understand that if you tax medical device equipment and hammer them with an overall windfall tax, that somehow those costs will be passed down to the end user? It's counterproductive, and just shows you that they have no !@#$ing clue in how to bring down costs.

 

If anything, they should be providing additional tax breaks for health insurance companies and medical device makers, and somehow mandate that they pass those costs down to their clients. I mean, that would make sense.

 

Anyway, I told you that the "public option" wouldn't drive down premiums for those who don't qualify for subsidies, and I will bet you my last bottom dollar that the CBO is off on their estimates for Big/small businesses. They say it will make a "negligible" difference, my guestimation is that they will be wrong by close to 10%.

 

Where they are getting it wrong, is two areas, one miscalculating the mandate of covering people with pre existing conditions and how that will affect premiums and two the demand for overall medical care will go up dramatically and that the shortage for primary care doctors and other areas will drive up overall costs even higher.

[Doc]

I don't get this "let's do something (incredibly stupid/expensive) and fix it later" mentality. How well have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security been fixed since their inceptions? What should be happening in that the retirement age should be made 70, period, and the wage base should be doubled, if not eliminated. That would help Medicare AND Social Security. But that would inflame the masses of seniors and prevent the politicians from getting re-elected. Why should this new entitlement program be any different?

 

Speaking of the seniors, they believe that the $460B in cuts won't affect their care and that the savings will be realized by FINALLY eliminating waste and fraud. Yeah, and that Nigerian prince is willing to give you $10,234,615 in family inheritance if you send them $1000 to help get it.

[Magox]

Speaking of the seniors, they believe that the $460B in cuts won't affect their care and that the savings will be realized by FINALLY eliminating waste and fraud. Yeah, and that Nigerian prince is willing to give you $10,234,615 in family inheritance if you send them $1000 to help get it.

Doc, those cuts will never take place. The only reason why they cut the $460B was to make the bill "Deficit neutral".

 

To only create a new bill and add back in $210 Billion. It's a shell game and they are trying to pull a fast one on us.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10732/HR3961_HonRyan.pdf

 

Also on a related note, they have never turned down medical reimbursement requests, and they won't in the future. So those cuts will never take place, it was solely done to make the bill appear to not add to the deficit.

[Doc]

Doc, those cuts will never take place. The only reason why they cut the $460B was to make the bill "Deficit neutral".

 

To only create a new bill and add back in $210 Billion. It's a shell game and they are trying to pull a fast one on us.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10732/HR3961_HonRyan.pdf

 

Also on a related note, they have never turned down medical reimbursement requests, and they won't in the future. So those cuts will never take place, it was solely done to make the bill appear to not add to the deficit.

Oh, I know that they. It's what's been going-on for the better part of the last decade. I was just commenting on how the AARP/seniors think that any cuts to Medicare wouldn't affect the quality of care they get and/or that it will all come from "fixing" Medicare. But at least they have senility as an excuse. What's the Democrats' excuse?

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't get this "let's do something (incredibly stupid/expensive) and fix it later" mentality. How well have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security been fixed since their inceptions? What should be happening in that the retirement age should be made 70, period, and the wage base should be doubled, if not eliminated. That would help Medicare AND Social Security. But that would inflame the masses of seniors and prevent the politicians from getting re-elected. Why should this new entitlement program be any different?

 

Speaking of the seniors, they believe that the $460B in cuts won't affect their care and that the savings will be realized by FINALLY eliminating waste and fraud. Yeah, and that Nigerian prince is willing to give you $10,234,615 in family inheritance if you send them $1000 to help get it.

What advantage does the AARP have then in supporting the bill if its ultimately going to hurt them? They know it won't affect their coverage, or they would be dead against it. They again announced their solid support for it today.

[Magox]

What advantage does the AARP have then in supporting the bill if its ultimately going to hurt them?

Ask and you shall receive

I think the better question is what incentive does the Chamber of Commerce and NFIB have for not supporting this Bill?

[DC Tom]

Ask and you shall receive

I think the better question is what incentive does the Chamber of Commerce and NFIB have for not supporting this Bill?

 

$650M for letting people use their name??? And people think the insurance companies are gouging consumers?

 

Hell, you want to reduce the costs of both health insurance and credit, ending practices like this would probably be a good place to start.

[Alaska Darin]

What advantage does the AARP have then in supporting the bill if its ultimately going to hurt them? They know it won't affect their coverage, or they would be dead against it. They again announced their solid support for it today.

You can't be serious.

[IDBillzFan]

What advantage does the AARP have then in supporting the bill if its ultimately going to hurt them? They know it won't affect their coverage, or they would be dead against it. They again announced their solid support for it today.

I can't believe you're making this statement. Look into what AARP gets. You'll apparently be surprised.

 

And for what it's worth, getting solid AARP support is only slightly more laughable than getting solid AMA support. Looks good to Mr. Passing-By-The-Newstand, but anyone who pays even a little attention knows AARP and AMA are WH ragdolls whose membership numbers are falling faster than Obama's approval rating.

[Magox]

I can't believe you're making this statement. Look into what AARP gets. You'll apparently be surprised.

 

And for what it's worth, getting solid AARP support is only slightly more laughable than getting solid AMA support. Looks good to Mr. Passing-By-The-Newstand, but anyone who pays even a little attention knows AARP and AMA are WH ragdolls whose membership numbers are falling faster than Obama's approval rating.

The fact of the matter is that they have always supported a big government agenda, it is well known that they are a bunch of liberal blow hearts, and I'm somewhat surprised that some one as knowledgable as KTFBD made a statement as such.

[Kelly the Dog]

"IF it's ultimately going to hurt them." Can't you people read? It was a response to DOC implying the benefits are going to be drastically cut when they're not. They make a ton of money off their own kinds of private plans and there are all kinds of reasons to not trust the AARP. I didn't imply there wasn't a million ways they can take advantage of this bill, or why they are behind it. IMO, they are not going to be behind the bill or specific provisions in the bill where it drastically hurts their members care, which is what opponents and the post was saying. I don't agree. I don't support the AARP, they are as bad as any of those kinds of organizations.

 

There are also laws right in the bill that stop the government from doing what a lot of you guys are saying they will do because they always do (and I admit, they almost always do). In this there are specific pay-go provisions to stop it that other bills of the sort didnt have. Can they get around it down the road? I'm sure there are ways.

[Magox]

"IF it's ultimately going to hurt them." Can't you people read? It was a response to DOC implying the benefits are going to be drastically cut when they're not.

You're right, they won't be cut, because they will just add it back in, on another bill like the House HR 3961. It's a shell game. Congress has never denied medical reimbursement requests, so it's a sham.

 

However, IF they did cut the the $460 B, which they won't, but IF they did, then yes IT WOULD cut their benefits, according to this.

 

For those of you that don't want to read the link, here are the highlights:

 

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

 

I found this interesting as well:

 

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

 

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

 

More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.

 

 

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

 

Though the report does not attempt to quantify that impact, Foster writes: "It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would not be realized."

 

the one's who provided the report:

 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administers the two health-care programs. Foster's office acts as an independent technical adviser, serving both the administration and Congress. In that sense, it is similar to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which also has questioned the sustainability of proposed Medicare cuts.