CBO scores the Senate Health Bill

[ExiledInIllinois]

Which would be a more compelling argument if you didn't quote an example from 1959.

 

That was a very unique situation. The Seaway opened Canada to the world on a regular basis and more easily.

 

Even some 15 years earlier during the war, didn't they use sub nets as precaution at the Soo in fear of submarines getting into the Lake Superior?

[Alaska Darin]

Ya... Probably the ones that weren't standing in soup lines.

 

"Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

 

BS... Shoulda, woulda, coulda's.

 

Never assume Darin, it is unbecoming.

 

Move along people, nothing to see... Move along... Darin and others are talking out their ass again.

[Alaska Darin]

BS... Shoulda, woulda, coulda's.

 

Never assume Darin, it is unbecoming.

Says the guy giving credit where none is due. I'll let you know the second I give a crap about what your opinion of "becoming" is or isn't.

Move along people, nothing to see... Move along... Darin and others are talking out their ass again.

Pot? This is kettle. The next lucid take you have on anything will be the moment everyone will start looking for the 4 horsemen

[Chef Jim]

Even better. That is exactly my thinking why the right are screaming like little school girls.

 

 

NEWSFLASH: Like it or not, we are a lot better society because of the New Deal.

 

There is no reason to go back, times were worse... Just as they are now.

 

This post is very unbecoming.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Says the guy giving credit where none is due. I'll let you know the second I give a crap about what your opinion of "becoming" is or isn't.

 

Pot? This is kettle. The next lucid take you have on anything will be the moment everyone will start looking for the 4 horsemen

 

Keep beating the same horse Darin, you are still wrong. I may not be able to properly put down everything in words... But you know that I am right.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

This post is very unbecoming.

 

What in PPP or elsewhere is not?

[Magox]

It looks like the nurses don't like this bill either.

 

NNU cited ten significant problems in the legislation, noting many of the same flaws also exist in the House version and are likely to remain in the bill that emerges from the House-Senate reconciliation process:

 

1. The individual mandate forcing all those without coverage to buy private insurance, with insufficient cost controls on skyrocketing premiums and other insurance costs.

 

2. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.

 

3. An affordability mirage. Congressional Budget Office estimates say a family of four with a household income of $54,000 would be expected to pay 17 percent of their income, $9,000, on healthcare exposing too many families to grave financial risk.

 

4. The excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans which will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies, especially as more plans are subject to the tax every year due to the lack of adequate price controls. A Towers-Perrin survey in September found 30 percent of employers said they would reduce employment if their health costs go up, 86 percent said they'd pass the higher costs to their employees.

 

5. Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:

 

 

* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail "wellness" programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.

* Insurers are permitted to sell policies "across state lines", exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.

* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.

* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for "fraud or intentional misrepresentation" - the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.

 

6. Minimal oversight on insurance denials of care; a report by the California Nurses Association/NNOC in September found that six of California's largest insurers have rejected more than one-fifth of all claims since 2002.

 

7. Inadequate limits on drug prices, especially after Senate rejection of an amendment, to protect a White House deal with pharmaceutical giants, allowing pharmacies and wholesalers to import lower-cost drugs.

 

8. New burdens for our public safety net. With a shortage of primary care physicians and a continuing fiscal crisis at the state and local level, public hospitals and clinics will be a dumping ground for those the private system doesn't want.

 

9. Reduced reproductive rights for women.

 

10. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; healthcare remains a privilege, not a right.

 

"Desperation to pass a bill, regardless of its flaws, has made the White House and Congress subject to the worst political extortion and new, crippling concessions every day," Burger said.

[Alaska Darin]

Keep beating the same horse Darin, you are still wrong. I may not be able to properly put down everything in words... But you know that I am right.

 

The one thing I know is: If it's historical and you're offering an opinion, it's probably so far from correct that wrong couldn't adequately describe it.

 

Now get back over to the other thread and man up with a better response. The last one was pathetic, even for you.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The one thing I know is: If it's historical and you're offering an opinion, it's probably so far from correct that wrong couldn't adequately describe it.

 

Now get back over to the other thread and man up with a better response. The last one was pathetic, even for you.

 

Which one?

[IDBillzFan]

It looks like the nurses don't like this bill either.

Don't mind admitting I feel a little dirty enjoying all this far left opposition to the health care bill because "it's not liberal enough."

 

I also like the headline above that article discussing Parker Griffith's defection today to the GOP: "Everyone Hates Griffith."

 

Leave it to the Huffington Post to make the case that the right doesn't want Griffith, either, because he's not conservative enough for the "Tea-steeped conservative movement." I need to see what DailyKos is saying. Probably something Olbermann-driven like: "Parker Griffith is THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!!!" ;)

[Magox]

Don't mind admitting I feel a little dirty enjoying all this far left opposition to the health care bill because "it's not liberal enough."

 

I also like the headline above that article discussing Parker Griffith's defection today to the GOP: "Everyone Hates Griffith."

 

Leave it to the Huffington Post to make the case that the right doesn't want Griffith, either, because he's not conservative enough for the "Tea-steeped conservative movement." I need to see what DailyKos is saying. Probably something Olbermann-driven like: "Parker Griffith is THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!!!" ;)

Me neither brother. I love it!!

 

Also, here's another article for you to enjoy, just read some of the comments.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

 

which reflects this.

[IDBillzFan]

Me neither brother. I love it!!

 

Also, here's another article for you to enjoy, just read some of the comments.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

 

which reflects this.

Funny, because I found the DailyKOS article about Griffith, and they talk about how he picked a bad time to defect because a CNN poll shows Obama at 54% and rising.

 

Awesome.

 

Edit: I really love how Obama talks about the CBO scoring the bill as reducing the deficit when we'll actually be paying for it for FOUR FREAKING YEARS before it takes place. Plus, it assumes they WILL cut half a billion in Medicare. But if they don't????? Then what?

[Magox]

This gets a little complicated, but there is a gap that Congress is trying to close in Medicare's drug "Doughnut hole". (ya ya, I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere)

 

Basically in a nutshell back in 2003 a piece of legislation was passed that allowed pharmaceutical drugs to be covered in Medicare for seniors. Very popular amongst seniors of course, but very costly to the government as well, and some estimates have it at over $15 B a year. However, there is a "Doughnut hole", which for many seniors means that in some cases that half and sometimes even more of the costs are not covered under Medicare.

 

So what Democratic leadership wants to do is close the "Doughnut hole". Which would mean that the entire cost would be subsidized by both the drug companies and the government.

 

They would gradually close the hole and eventually by 2019 it would be fully implemented. The W.H had cut a deal with Pharma, the deal basically was that the W.H assured Pharma that they wouldn't allow the importation of much cheaper drugs, which of course would be the best solution to lower drug costs, but what the W.H received was one, Pharma would repay the government the difference between the prices the companies charge for medicine for low income patients in Medicare and the prices they used to charge in Medicaid, before the Medicare drug benefit existed. Two, Pharma wouldn't lobby against Health Reform, knowing that Pharma has tremendous monetary coffers that would of probably killed this Bill if they were opposing it.

 

Of course, closing the "doughnut hole" is very popular for seniors but the concern is that this would end up being extremely expensive. The Democrats say that they could afford doing this because the $80B deal that the W.H struck with PHarma would pay for it. Typical, they find savings and immediately want to spend it somewhere else, sort of like the Bailout funds.

 

However, once the "doughnut hole" is fully closed by 2019 this would end up being a budget buster. The CBO provided an estimate last year stating that if the "doughnut hole" were to be totally closed that it would cost $134 B over a ten year period. Remember, the $80B that Pharma is to be paying the government isn't something that will continue forever, most of that is to pay the difference of the Medicare and Medicaid payments going back from 2003, so once that is payed off, the government will be paying most of the price tag.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule

 

This is yet another portion of the bill that will add to the deficit.

[Alaska Darin]

This gets a little complicated, but there is a gap that Congress is trying to close in Medicare's drug "Doughnut hole". (ya ya, I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere)

 

Basically in a nutshell back in 2003 a piece of legislation was passed that allowed pharmaceutical drugs to be covered in Medicare for seniors. Very popular amongst seniors of course, but very costly to the government as well, and some estimates have it at over $15 B a year. However, there is a "Doughnut hole", which for many seniors means that in some cases that half and sometimes even more of the costs are not covered under Medicare.

 

So what Democratic leadership wants to do is close the "Doughnut hole". Which would mean that the entire cost would be subsidized by both the drug companies and the government.

 

They would gradually close the hole and eventually by 2019 it would be fully implemented. The W.H had cut a deal with Pharma, the deal basically was that the W.H assured Pharma that they wouldn't allow the importation of much cheaper drugs, which of course would be the best solution to lower drug costs, but what the W.H received was one, Pharma would repay the government the difference between the prices the companies charge for medicine for low income patients in Medicare and the prices they used to charge in Medicaid, before the Medicare drug benefit existed. Two, Pharma wouldn't lobby against Health Reform, knowing that Pharma has tremendous monetary coffers that would of probably killed this Bill if they were opposing it.

 

Of course, closing the "doughnut hole" is very popular for seniors but the concern is that this would end up being extremely expensive. The Democrats say that they could afford doing this because the $80B deal that the W.H struck with PHarma would pay for it. Typical, they find savings and immediately want to spend it somewhere else, sort of like the Bailout funds.

 

However, once the "doughnut hole" is fully closed by 2019 this would end up being a budget buster. The CBO provided an estimate last year stating that if the "doughnut hole" were to be totally closed that it would cost $134 B over a ten year period. Remember, the $80B that Pharma is to be paying the government isn't something that will continue forever, most of that is to pay the difference of the Medicare and Medicaid payments going back from 2003, so once that is payed off, the government will be paying most of the price tag.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule

 

This is yet another portion of the bill that will add to the deficit.

Shhh.

[erynthered]

Here's the response I got back from one of our Senators in Florida after I told him what I thought of their plan.

 

Dear Mr. erynthered:

 

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform.

 

On October 13, I joined a bipartisan majority in the Finance Committee and voted to pass the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009. Senator Reid merged this bill with another bill passed by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee earlier this year, and unveiled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. On November 21, I voted to bring this bill up for debate.

 

I am pleased with much of what is in Senator Reid’s bill. It would allow those who are happy with their insurance to keep what they’ve got, including veterans and seniors on Medicare. It creates State-based exchanges where those without coverage, or those who are unhappy with what they have, can get coverage at an affordable price. The bill also would hold insurers' feet to the fire, requiring them to cover everyone and preventing them from dropping someone who gets sick. Additionally, it contains several measures aimed at reducing overall medical and prescription drug costs and eliminating waste and fraud in the system. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that Senator Reid’s bill will reduce the Federal budget deficit by $130 billion over ten years.

 

Among the improvements I added to the bill in the Finance Committee is a provision that would preserve benefits for an estimated 800,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida and another provision that would protect tax benefits for seniors who have high medical expenses. I am happy that these provisions are included in Senator Reid’s bill as well.

 

As for a public option, Senator Reid’s bill includes a public option that would allow States to opt out if they choose. I support this plan because it will provide consumers with more choices and make it harder for any one company, public or private, to dominate the insurance market.

 

I intend to improve this bill by introducing an amendment that will force pharmaceutical companies to give rebates to the Federal government for certain drugs purchased under the Medicare Part D program. These rebates will save the government billions, which will be used to fill the gap in Part D coverage known as the “doughnut hole.”

 

I am hopeful that the Senate will vote on this bill before the end of the year. Regardless of where anyone stands on the specifics, I think we all can agree that the system we have can be unfair and too costly, and needs reform. Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future.

 

Sincerely,

Senator Bill Nelson

[IDBillzFan]

This is yet another portion of the bill that will add to the deficit.

While I'm not a big fan of loudly proclaiming "I told you so," the truth is, sometimes you don't need to say it because the blunder is so epic that even the most die-hard supporters can see the error. The problem, unfortunately, is that in the case of this bill (which is likely the closest to resembling the final bill) the error is going to be SO large and SO detrimental to the fiscal health of this country, and by 2019, the idiots pushing the three-card monty for the sake of doing something "historic" will be dead, and unable to see the embarrassingly ridiculous error of their ways.

 

Unfortunately, the repeal process has even less chance of being successful, and Americans are going to once again get saddled paying for a horribly-designed entitlement program, despite the overwhelming wishes of the people to not do this.

[Magox]

Here's the response I got back from one of our Senators in Florida after I told him what I thought of their plan.

 

Dear Mr. erynthered:

 

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform.

 

On October 13, I joined a bipartisan majority in the Finance Committee and voted to pass the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009. Senator Reid merged this bill with another bill passed by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee earlier this year, and unveiled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. On November 21, I voted to bring this bill up for debate.

 

I am pleased with much of what is in Senator Reid’s bill. It would allow those who are happy with their insurance to keep what they’ve got, including veterans and seniors on Medicare. It creates State-based exchanges where those without coverage, or those who are unhappy with what they have, can get coverage at an affordable price. The bill also would hold insurers' feet to the fire, requiring them to cover everyone and preventing them from dropping someone who gets sick. Additionally, it contains several measures aimed at reducing overall medical and prescription drug costs and eliminating waste and fraud in the system. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that Senator Reid’s bill will reduce the Federal budget deficit by $130 billion over ten years.

 

Among the improvements I added to the bill in the Finance Committee is a provision that would preserve benefits for an estimated 800,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida and another provision that would protect tax benefits for seniors who have high medical expenses. I am happy that these provisions are included in Senator Reid’s bill as well.

 

As for a public option, Senator Reid’s bill includes a public option that would allow States to opt out if they choose. I support this plan because it will provide consumers with more choices and make it harder for any one company, public or private, to dominate the insurance market.

 

I intend to improve this bill by introducing an amendment that will force pharmaceutical companies to give rebates to the Federal government for certain drugs purchased under the Medicare Part D program. These rebates will save the government billions, which will be used to fill the gap in Part D coverage known as the “doughnut hole.”

 

I am hopeful that the Senate will vote on this bill before the end of the year. Regardless of where anyone stands on the specifics, I think we all can agree that the system we have can be unfair and too costly, and needs reform. Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future.

 

Sincerely,

Senator Bill Nelson

I received the exact same letter Erin.

 

LA, there is a small chance for this to be repealed, its not likely and the window of opportunity is small, it would have to be done by 2013 before the subsidies really kick in. BO would have to be elected out and the Senate and house would have to turn to a majority to the conservative side.

 

They probably wouldn't need all 60 senate votes to get it repealed and just go through reconciliation which would only require 51 votes. Reconciliation is traditionally supposed to be used for budget deficit pieces of legislation and this in my view would fall in that category.

 

It is unlikely that this could be achieved but possible, and I wouldn't be surprised if many new politicians run in the Nov. 2010 and 2012 elections running on the mantra of getting this bill repealed. It is such a contentious issue, very unpopular and would only make sense to do so.

[John Adams]

I received the exact same letter Erin.

 

LA, there is a small chance for this to be repealed, its not likely and the window of opportunity is small, it would have to be done by 2013 before the subsidies really kick in. BO would have to be elected out and the Senate and house would have to turn to a majority to the conservative side.

 

They probably wouldn't need all 60 senate votes to get it repealed and just go through reconciliation which would only require 51 votes. Reconciliation is traditionally supposed to be used for budget deficit pieces of legislation and this in my view would fall in that category.

 

It is unlikely that this could be achieved but possible, and I wouldn't be surprised if many new politicians run in the Nov. 2010 and 2012 elections running on the mantra of getting this bill repealed. It is such a contentious issue, very unpopular and would only make sense to do so.

 

That is an interesting thought--the idea of repeal. The other thing that could happen is that other bills could pass (post Obama) that render this bill ineffective.

[IDBillzFan]

That is an interesting thought--the idea of repeal. The other thing that could happen is that other bills could pass (post Obama) that render this bill ineffective.

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.