CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed

Oh wow, what a surprise…. Didn’t need the CBO to tell us that one.

Really? We told you so well before the Democrats crammed this health industry takeover scheme down our throats! Just another reason to oust the lying scoundrels out of office this fall.

The real concern is that the electorate is getting numb to the constant stream of lies.

It will actually cost many times more than was previously announced. It is a government program – study the record…

Obama is a liar.

What is misleading here is the true cost to the taxpayer.
Take the part of the bill that lets your kid under age 26 stay on the parent’s insurance. Our son is graduating, there aren’t a lot of jobs out there and a lot of jobs have no or little insurance coverage. The cost of buying him insurance out-of-pocket ranges from $2400 a year for really bad insurance to $6,000 for a decent plan.
It is good to know that starting 2011 he will have insurance at no cost under his dad’s plan.
This one part alone is saving our family and lots of others a whole lot of money.
Same with the parts concerning the elderly and their prescriptions, as well as giving them annual check-ups, which in turn will save Medicare by catching problems early.
Everyone’s premiums should start to stabilize and not continue to skyrocket because of this bill. How much money is that saving us as individuals?
What I’m trying to say is we have to look at the whole picture here. The net savings to individuals and families and businesses really add up to more money saved than spent on this bill. This in turn, is good for our economy, as businesses and individuals can use their savings to buy needed goods and services. Uninsured people die at a much higher rate than the insured. Every death prevented by this bill is preventing a tremendous loss to that family and society in general. Just add the cost of a 40 year old parent dying and then the payout from Social Security to his kids until they are 18.
The lost taxes that parent would have paid into the system if he/she had survived.
It is all about looking at the big picture.

This revelation is analogous to finding out there were no WMD’s in Iraq with one significant difference. No one was allowed unfettered access into Iraq to actually check and the rest of the world was also convinced that Saddam had the weapons or was actively engaged in producing them. Here, all the evidence that the Health Care Bill would increase costs and, decrease both the quality and quantity of health care in this country was readily and widely available. The Obama Administration, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, engaged in a cover-up of the facts by slanting the data, rigging the assumptions and other wise hiding the truth by constructing a maze of smoke and mirrors. I believe the conclusion that we have been lied to on a massive scale by this unholy trinity is 100% accurate. Snake Oil salesmen run our federal government and it’s a sad commentary on how far we have fallen as a civilization.

Lydia——please don’t forget to add the $290 billion “fix it” bill bringing this total so far to $1.29 trillion and we see nothing until 2014! You are exactly right about the high cost of those young adults under 26. Our company just finished their review of dependent insurance certification and it is going to cost millions. The so called “Health Care Reform” Obama ran on has turned into “Insurance Regulation” and done nothing to stem therising cost of health care.

Animals in the wild need no supervision, a bird of prey and a goat understand what is necessary for them to survive. In a zoo helpless animals depend on their keepers, without them they would starve to death. Peace and order is needed for the US to survive as a nation, rioting by discontents must be avoided. Uncle Sam is needed as a zoo keeper, his job is to make sure that all the animals are properly fed, peace and order must be maintained at all costs.

Lydia, I must give you credit for wading in on this one. Your defense of the absolute lies that were told this country are beyond unbelievable but you are making them. Others seem to be missing.
It must be hell defending Borak Ubama’s revolving lies. He’s made love to this country once again. November is getting closer everyday.

The question is, did the CBO lie about the cost so it could be passed?

Here, all the evidence that the Health Care Bill would increase costs and, decrease both the quality and quantity of health care in this country was readily and widely available….
____________
So all the information was widely available and transparent, but there was also a nefarious cover up somehow?
And this CBO report isn’t being reported or something????
Hmmmm… is it just me or is there some strange acrobatics of logic going on there? (And, as an aside, I’d say it was really brave of you to bring up the WMD’s in Iraq positively or, more accurately, the lack thereof– basically defending that debacle and trying to say that waging an unnecessary war of aggression on borrowed money with no sacrifice asked of anyone but the troops and their families is somehow more worthy than providing health care to our citizens like all other first world nations do– if you weren’t largely preaching to the choir with that type of argument here.)
No matter. I’ll move on.
The key here is this paragraph:
“Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said in response that the health care law “will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it. If these authorizations are funded, they must be offset somewhere else in the discretionary budget. The President has called for a non-security discretionary spending freeze, and he will enforce that with his veto pen.”
Baer also pointed a reporter to comments made by OMB director Peter Orszag on his blog in March in which the budget director says that Congress has the power to pay for the $115 billion costs with cuts elsewhere, or not act on those budget authorizations in the bill at all.”
In other words, like with other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits.
I’d also point to Kaiser Health News as they sum up the reporting thus far on this at “CBO Raises Cost Estimate For Health Law, Sparking Political Reaction” and link to all the current news related to health care and health care reform, like this from Modern Health Care: “In its latest projection, however, the CBO included provisions that were not factored in a previous estimate released in March. For instance, the CBO added costs for Indian healthcare and for provisions in the law that build on funding from programs already in existence. The agency also included funding for the National Health Service Corps, which it inadvertently left out”

And is anyone really surprised by this. Some of us knew this healthcare bill was a bunch of bs from the start.

Looks like the CBO wants to CYA.
They are trying to cover the “big Lie” gap… reduce the difference between the obama version of the lie, and the CBO’s version of the lie. Of course, they are way, way short yet of being honest.
No Truth from obama… No Truth from the CBO… No Truth from ABC… No Truth from any of the MSM.

“In other words, like with other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits.”
set budgetary limits??? mama, that’s a good one! Obama’s veto pen? What does he have a line-item veto now?
New entitlement program and reduced deficit are mutually exclusive. You cannot have one with the other.

Anyone who cares about reality, I suggest you follow the first link Jake provides to the primary source. Or you can just wave a little partisan flag and yell about overblown headlines.
“By their nature, however, all such potential effects on discretionary spending are subject to future appropriation actions, which could result in greater or smaller costs than the sums authorized by the legislation. Moreover, in many cases, the law authorizes future appropriations but does not specify a particular amount.”
So, in short, if Congress spends the maximum at every turn it will cost more. If they spend the expected, it will come in around the original estimate.

progressive mama —- As I said, they passed a $290B “fix it”, to a revised $1 trillion dollar Insurance Regulation, not health care reform. So when you add it all together (as many of us knew before passage) it’s going to cost us more not less. The CBO’s original estimate was short most likely due to them not being given ALL the information needed to make a complete assessment. Many people saw this coming and trying to defend it after the majority of Americans were against it is futile.

That is a scary thought Melvin.

I thought Obama promised to not sign anything that wouldn’t bring down the costs of health care.
Anyone Surprised? | May 12, 2010 11:08:27 AM
Really? You thought that did you? CITATION PLEASE. An actual quote – you know, the real words that President Obama said.
And if you can’t turn anything up, or the ACTUAL QUOTE doesn’t support your opinion of ‘what he really meant’ well, with Republicans track record of exageration and outright lying I doubt you’ll find Anyone Surprised.

First of all, let’s set the record straight. The CBO works for Congress and OMB works for the White House. Of course, OMB is going to take the President’s side on this. He was working behind the scenes with Democrats to find ways to make this appear fiscally sound.
Second, do you really think this President will follow the Pay-go rules? Congress will start yelling “emergency”, the media will bad mouth Republicans who stand in the way and the President will sign the increase.
Lastly, let’s not forget about the two bills that Congress wants to pass. The first one will cap the amount an insurance company can increase the premiums and the second is the “doc fix”. The first bill will bankrupt insurance companies and the latter the American public. The CBO has estimated that the doctor’s fix will cost $270B+ over 10 years.
If my numbers are correct, this healthcare bill will cost us about $250B over 10 years, even with 4 years of taxes and 6 years of operations. Can you imagine what a true 10 year forecast would look like?

with increasingly greater deficit , debt and bureaucrat, this nation will get closer to become Greece, which needs to be bail out, by China or Japan ?

jhw539 — Obama has many times said he was going to lower health care costs, but this Insurance Regulation doesn’t even begin to address actual health care costs. With this particular bill, he said he would sign anything that is not “deficit neutral”. Now, given the $290B “fix it” bill and this $115B “mistake” both wipe out ANY projected savings which WILL CERTAINLY make this non-deficit neutral.

Posted by: Lydia | May 12, 2010 10:09:36 AM
Lydia,
If you think that premiums are going to stabilize you do not understand the healthcare bill. Also, your “child” of 26 will be covered but at an additional cost. I did not read in the bill that that the insurance companies are now charities to those with children up to the age of 26 and are covered at no additional cost. If it does not cost you specifically, it will then cost all of us to insure your child, even those making less than $250k. My guess is you will see an “unexpected” increase in your company’s healthcare premiums. So thank you for adding a hidden tax/fee or whatever way you want to put it..
I also wonder why you are insisting on a “Cadillac” plan for someone who is not working when you are obviously able to provide for the difference between a “bad” plan and the one you feel they deserve. Have you ever heard of the phrase personal responsibility? Or is it you will spend other people’s money, but not contribute your own. You know like how Joe Biden (and Obama until this year) contributes well below the average American to charities, but spend billions of our tax money.

…The CBO’s original estimate was short most likely due to them not being given ALL the information needed to make a complete assessment. Many people saw this coming and trying to defend it after the majority of Americans were against it is futile.
Posted by: lfrichar | May 12, 2010 11:08:03 AM
I think I’ll consider what the CBO says about that, and keep in mind how the CBO works and their historical record on things like this before falling prey to bizarro coverup conspiracy theories, because as you say, many people saw this coming… based on how CBO does estimates!
Sorry logical acrobatics isn’t a fave past time of mine. I like regular old logic–you know, the kind that makes sense.
What I’m curious about is why you all have to exaggerate your point? Is it because the point alone isn’t good enough?
For example, you exaggerate two points. You (and others) insinuate or flat-out allege that the original CBO estimates didn’t include various discretionary spending estimates because things were nefariously kept from the CBO. History and the record doesn’t bare that out. You could make a fair statement and remain credible. But I guess that’s no fun.
Then you say that we see nothing till 2014, which also isn’t in keeping with the rollout timeline.
You all really should read Kaiser Health News. It gives you the good, the bad and the ugly without gross exaggeration. You’d likely ignore the good, the benefits rolling out before 2014, for instance, and you’d focus on the negative– but at least you’d get the sticking points correct.
As for me, I focus on what to do about improving the situation where there are problems. Not into scorched earth obstructionism for the sake of voting in representatives of a failed party with no ideas or solutions.

progressive mama; Would you like sugar and lemon with your tea?

You’re not going to be able to keep your plan.
You’re not going to be able to keep your doctor.
drjohn | May 12, 2010 11:18:49 AM
To folks reading: Did you keep your doctor? Did you keep your plan?
Ask yourself that now, next year, the following year. If the answers keep being yes, please remember just how much credibility to put in the “sky is falling” Republican party’s predictions in future.

We will remember in November.
Remember all the lies.

jhw539 —- This bill was passed on the cost estimate. Obama said it had to be “deficit neutral” and at one time under $900B. They fought to pass it BECAUSE of the cost savings and nothing more. This is only Insurance Regulation which means it is really going to cost us when we begin reforming health care. How many posts did you read before this was passed saying this was going to be more expensive? Admit it, how many?

Another reason why the Demoncrats and Obama would rather not talk about Obamacare anymore.
The “time for talk” has finally ended.
They probably want everyone to forget about HC until after November 2010.
I can’t wait to see the Ads from the GOP.

“You did bother to read the ACTUAL CBO ESTIMATES, that clearly called out these areas of uncertainty, right?”
Uncertainty?
Indeed. If Democrats tell the CBO to leave out the doc fix, they leave it out. If the CBO is told to leave out real costs, they leave it out. This was chicanery at its very best. The costs are going to be far more onerous than anyone has allowed.

It is TOTAL SPENDING (and not just government), and it is NOT per unit.
Posted by: jhw539
—
It has NEVER been per unit but has always been promoted as such. You, yourself, participated in that lie. As did tierra, progressive mama, Lydia, Ryan I & II, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc. Most of the public was too stupid to ask the question. For what it wasn’t worth I did ask the question.

Mayo Clinic believes that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an important initial step toward ensuring quality, affordable health care for all Americans, and that much more needs to be done in the form of future legislative action.”
March 26, 2010 – 1:56 pm Mayo Clinic Health Policy Blog
Posted by: jhw539
I don’t believe you are listening. I know much more needs to be done and my simple question to you is how much more is it going to cost to Reform Health Care? If this bill has already gone past its’ “deficit neutral” stage, then any bill adding to it is really going to blow it out of the water. We didn’t need affordable health care for ALL Americans, we needed it for those who wanted it but couldn’t afford it, which BTW might be 9% of our population. What this has done is promised those who are happy with their health care to make changes. My comant has already gone from 3 choices to 1 for our health care options. This legislation has done everything the skeptics said it would so far.

jhw539 — Partisan? I am an Independent and saw this coming. And I can’t keep my original plan from my employer because they immediately chose the lowest price and got rid of our other choices. How much more will health care reform cost us?

JHW – I am not using Boehner for any of my positions. I am not a hack for either political party, unlike yourself. I am using common sense and applying it to what I see. Your love of pulling numbers from multiple sources with adjustments made for this and that until you come to a number that suits your “unsupported” opinion is equally annoying. If I were so inclined I could gather particular statistics to offset what you say in support of what I say, but what would be the point? The bottom line is that this IS going to cost us and all the book-keeping tricks in the world will not change that fact. The law was ill-conceived, the cost estimates they arrived at required them to ignore numerous implementation costs as well as the fact that a separate bill with its own huge price tag was needed to make it work. But I am the one making things up to support my argument. You keep believing whatever fits into your idea of social justice and have a nice day. There is no point in talking to zealots; they are never interested in anything but their beliefs.

This is only the beginning of “administrative costs” and overruns,The C.B.O. was held on a pedistal to pass this scam. Now it is largely ignored.I hope for change in November and 2012.

Jed Thone —- Thank you for your clarification.

Bizarro cover up theories? …how many posts did you see that SPECIFICALLY called the cost into question before passage of this bill. You can water this down all you want, but the truth is the CBO was not given ALL the info needed …
Posted by: lfrichar | May 12, 2010 11:37:54 AM
lfrichar, yes, bizarro. Think about it …. you’re claiming the people commenting here had access to information that was kept– HIDDEN– from the CBO. good grief, next you’re going to claim they were blindfolded and thrown in a dungeon and forced to do their projections as they’ve always done them. And that there was no information available on what was and wasn’t in the CBO estimate.
Do you read the CBO blog? Have you read all their estimates? How about the Medicare Actuaries reports?
There are points to be made that would be credible critique. That the opposition can’t do credible critique without becoming nutso and resorting to cognitive distortion is one reason I believe the Republican right and those in common cause with them and their talking points are a failed movement solution and credibility wise.
This isn’t quite the silver bullet you all believe it is. But I’m sure you’ll be able to exploit it and use it for those who aren’t up to speed. If that’s what floats your boat, good on ya. It’ll make good fodder for the campaign trail I suppose, for those who think like you all.
Long term, I still think health care reform is essential to long term fiscal discipline, though it will require continued activism and holding our reps feet to the fire. perhaps, we’ll be arguing about this for years. Perhaps, that’s how it should be.

“They fought to pass it BECAUSE of the cost savings and nothing more. ”
lfrichar | May 12, 2010 11:31:17 AM
Nothing more? Citation please.
“It has NEVER been per unit but has always been promoted as such.”
smartlillena | May 12, 2010 11:39:35 AM
That doesn’t even make sense. What are you trying to say – it was never promoted as covering more people? Can you provide an ACTUAL QUOTE or two?
“And I can’t keep my original plan from my employer because they immediately chose the lowest price and got rid of our other choices.”
lfrichar | May 12, 2010 11:46:20 AM
Uh, the health care bill hasn’t created any new ‘lowest price’ options yet. You better save that lie until, you know, that portion of the bill has actually started being implemented (it is years out before the first policy influenced by this bill or the first exchange is even created).
” If this bill has already gone past its’ “deficit neutral” stage, then any bill adding to it is really going to blow it out of the water.”
lfrichar | May 12, 2010 11:44:12 AM
It hasn’t gone past deficit neutral, but what’s reality matter? If you want to know what more needs to be done, why don’t you go read REAL EXPERTS, like the Mayo clinic? Or does it offend you that they all support this bill as a small but good first step?
“You know, 2014. When all the real changes are supposed to take effect after they have built a sufficient savings through the taxes that started immediately to get that faux CBO score in the first place. We’ll see what happens then when companies start dropping health plans in favor of paying the “fines” from the government. What happens to your plan then?”
J.R. | May 12, 2010 11:45:24 AM
2014? How that be – lfrichar has already lost his insurance due to this bill! And the savings for post-2019 are projected to be LARGER. As for employers dropping health care, WHY DON’T THEY DO THAT NOW WHEN THERE IS ZERO FINES FOR DOING SO? Again, see how I am arguing based on verifiable, current reality?
“I find this a bit hypocritical because you yourself are also posting anonymously in defense of a partisan bill, doing the very same thing you accuse lfrichar of doing.”
Jed Thone | May 12, 2010 11:46:48 AM
Did you miss the part when I said, “And don’t believe me either….Factcheck me.” No one is going to be convinced of anything here, but perhaps someone may go off to REAL SOURCES AND EXPERTS and learn something.
“Your love of pulling numbers from multiple sources with adjustments made for this and that until you come to a number that suits your “unsupported” opinion is equally annoying.”
War919 | May 12, 2010 11:51:10 AM
Citation please, I provide them. What adjustments do I apply? Why do primary sources and references to REAL EXPERTS annoy you so? I don’t want people to take my word for it, I want people to LOOK AT REALITY AND THE ACTUAL FACTS rather than argue exaggerated headlines.

progressive mama —- I am simply saying that all the information needed by the CBO to give a “completely accurate” report was simply not given to them. I wouldn’t call it a cover up, because the CBO gave an estimate on all the information they had. As for health care reform,yes, we certainly need it, so I will ask you one simple question thet neither you nor jhw539 can answer. How much more is Health Care Reform going to cost us? How many more “fix it” bills on just this law will we need? The Dems made a huge mistake passing a bill that most Americans were against and they fought tooth and nail to pass it. ALMOST all of us knew what the real truth was. It is amazing after many months since passage they finally came up with another estimate when the CBO had done it in a matter of days.

jhw539 — A good 1st step is a bill in the oh, $250 billion range not over $1 trillion! Are you insane? And I am truly sorry if my direct quote from OBAMA’s website wasn’t good enough for you and the very first item says it will lower cost to all of us. You can post the longest, the most about Mayo and the points you might make, but it doesn;’t hide from the fact that many, including some Dems said this was too expensive and we should not have passed it. Now, you and Mayo say it’s a “START”? I wonder where the finish is then????? I hope you have a nice day.

jhw539 — “Deficit Neutral”. The CBO estimate showed a $130 billion savings in 10 years if the $890 billion bill was passed. We then added a $290 billion “fix it”. Now we add a $115 billion mistake. Add he $290B and the $115B together and you get $405B. Subtract $405B from $130B and you will get -$275B. We are no longer deficit neutral in 10 years.

They say a big part of the problem in Greece is their socialized medical care…

“”"”"”They say a big part of the problem in Greece is their socialized medical care…”"”"”"
Posted by: Quo Warranto
Do we see ANY correlation between Greece, Spain, Italy and…..Massachusetts? Interesting, isn’t it?

jhw539 —- The public option, oh yes. The Dems were completely wrong in passing this, but they are right about a “public option”. The public option won’t work. Insurance companies can’t work in the red, yet our government can work with a dificit. Is that a fair playground? So, as health care costs rise, both the government and insurance companies will have to raise rates. IF the government decides to keep theirs steady and subsidize, they will force insurance companies out of business including the millions of jobs that goes with them. A nice quick step to nationalized health care. While I am a proponent for single payer, I believe the USA is too large to be able to manage it and I also believe the salaries would have to be too low in an effort to keep costs down. many doctors would go to private practice. I lived in Spain for 11 years and watched this happen. We need cost controls on our health care system, not just insurance regulation.

The Dems were completely wrong in passing this, but they are right about a “public option”. The public option won’t work. Insurance companies can’t work in the red, yet our government can work with a dificit.
lfrichar | May 12, 2010 12:33:44 PM
I (and the Mayo clinic, among many REAL EXPERTS) believe the Democrats were right to pass this. And when dealing with health care, a mandatory pool is basically required to control costs. This is why Medicare exists and works – many of the elderly are uninsurable at any cost, Medicare only works by requiring everyone pay in to spread the risk (those who die of a heart attack at 55 subsidize those who need 20 years of dialysis). As DNA screening becomes more advanced, the pool of uninsurable at any cost will grow.
This is basic insurance theory.

jhw539 —- Medicare is broken. You put alot of emphasis on the Mayo clinic and REAL EXPERTS as you call them. While we the public may not be experts in insurance, I think we get the basic premise of it. What we the public are good at is giving the government taxes to run programs and they have proven, time and time again, that they cannot manage, budget, spend nor control any programs. We have spent over $1 trillion dollars for what you and Mayo say is a start up. If that is already “close to deficit neutral” then how can REAL EXPERTS say we were right in passing it? At that rate, true health care reform is going to be astronomical and way over wht we are paying now. Cost control measures have to be in place. Just ask the legislature in massachusetts.

“As for the finish, well based on what works in EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD NATION IN EXISTENCE”
Posted by: jhw539 | May 12, 2010 12:24:25 PM
Perhaps you are referring to the healthcare system in the U.K. where cancer survival rates are LESS than those in the U.S.? Or, perhaps the Canadian system where wait times and access are significantly worse than here in the U.S. (on a side note, I read a story recently of a pregnant Canadian woman who went into labor in British Columbia (Vancouver?) and was flown to Alberta (Edmonton?) because there were no beds available for her in any hospitals in British Columbia).
Hmm…I think I’d be happier with status quo than the exalted European and Canadian socialized healthcare models you firmly embrace.

Medicare is broken. You put alot of emphasis on the Mayo clinic and REAL EXPERTS as you call them. While we the public may not be experts in insurance, I think we get the basic premise of it. lfrichar | May 12, 2010 12:53:16 PM
Yes, I do put a lot of emphasis on the people who spend their entire careers researching and providing health care. I also trust my dentist, my mechanic, and my doctor to know their fields better than I. It’s sorta what the modern world is built on.
I do not believe most of the public gets the basic premise of health insurance.

I do put a lot of emphasis on the people who spend their entire careers researching and providing health care. I also trust my dentist, my mechanic, and my doctor to know their fields better than I. It’s sorta what the modern world is built on.
Posted by: jhw539 |
I’m jumping into the conversation a bit late, but would like to point out that while your doctor or dentist might be an expert in their field of medicine, they are probably not experts in the field of health care administration or managing costs. The doctor’s job is simply to provide care. She probably hires someone else to handle insurance claims and payments.
Unless your doctor is one of the few who does not accept insurance or medicaid and only accepts cash payments, chances are they have no idea how to lower costs of the nation’s health care system.

I think I’d be happier with status quo than the exalted European and Canadian socialized healthcare models you firmly embrace.
Posted by: tjp612 | May 12, 2010 12:56:00 PM
And is the status quo Medicare with no recission or denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions?
Just askin’

He wrote his own bill and it didn’t even get a look by the media.
—-
As it turned out the Republican caucus didn’t support it either, as a whole. In fact, they demagogued against many things in it, if you’ve read it closely you know what I mean, and despite Ryan offering up the same bill in the House, the House offered up something else that was mocked by the conservative press.

I’d also add in regard to Coburn that many of his ideas are in the legislation in a slightly altered (more Democrat) form– and he and Obama have been friends for quite some time and have chatted on this issue.
So don’t always buy all of the hype without doing the side by side reading.

Also, since I know there’s at least one person who loves when I quote Ezra Klein, and Klein makes a couple of good points on this issue, here ya go:
“When the Congressional Budget Office assesses the cost of a bill, they look at mandatory effects. So if the bill says you have to give subsidies to everyone making less than $80,000, they figure out how much that is likely to cost and add it to the total. If the bill says you have to tax employer-provided insurance plans, they figure out how much that tax will raise and add it to the total. If the bill simply says that you can choose to fund something by taking another vote on it in the future, it doesn’t enter the tally. It’s a world of musts, not mays.
At the request of Rep. Jerry Lewis, the CBO has now estimated the “mays” of health-care reform, and with a price tag that shocked some folks: $115 billion. “If Congress were to approve all of this new discretionary funding authorized in the health-care bill, almost all of the administration’s highly touted savings would be made null and void,” said Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee.
That’s true, at least in the first decade. But it’s all about that “if.” Aside from $10 or $20 billion of administrative costs, the estimate is based on items that are not currently funded and that may not ever be funded. It’s up to the appropriations committees to make those decisions, and we don’t know what decisions they’ll make. Moreover, because discretionary spending is limited, new programs tend to compete with old programs (i.e., appropriators decide to spend $2 billion on a demonstration project in Medicare and take that money from somewhere else, which means net cost to the deficit is zero). So CBO doesn’t count potential discretionary costs because they may or may not be real, just like it doesn’t count savings that may or may not happen, because they can’t be projected with any sort of certainty.
Bottom line? As has so often the case with health-care reform, there’s plenty of evidence to argue that the bill will save very little money, and plenty of evidence to argue that the bill will save lots of money. Where you end up depends on how you weight different probabilities.”
(Ezra Klein, WaPo)

jhw539 —- Experts are found on both sides of the issue. There is even a question about the amount of people that actually need coverage eventhough the Dems set that at 34 million, refuted by MANY to be way too high. Some EXPERTS put that number at or around only 10 million. I believe we need health care reform and insurance regulation would have been part of it. I think it is difficult to regulate an insurance company when you don’t regulate the health care costs that drive that insurance premium. I have said that from day 1 of the insurance regulation legislation and it will come out in the long run to be true. Without regulating costs in health care, you really can’t regulate nsurance companies premiums. While I believe we got a little of the subject, I have enjoyed the conversation.

Thanks BO!

So now we find out that the CBO numbers are bogus? Why am I not surprised? The HCR law was based on lies and pushed through against the wishes of the American People in an election year no less. Oh well, we’ll get even in November.

This “reform” bill does nothing to manage costs.
Posted by: J.R. | May 12, 2010 1:34:37 PM
Actually, the award winning medical writer Atul Gawande, a physician, btw, disagrees with you and wrote a great article in the New Yorker called Testing, Testing.
Also, as jhw has stressed, real experts disagree. They can be found on both sides of the issue, but few serious wonks dispute the potential of the Medicare commission, or Atul Gawande’s points.
just sayin’

Liberal talking points do not cover up the fact that if/when this bill is implemented, costs will GO UP! There is no bending down of the cost curve. There are numerous studies and numerous experts that refute this absurd contention that this HC bill drives down costs.
Every so-called “expert” hired by the Obama regime that argues this nonsense is using made up numbers and fantasy scenarios. All of the rosy scenarios are BOGUS!
Fact is the current path we are on is unsustainable. This is not counting a monolithic HC law implementation in 2014. UNSUSTAINABLE!

Hmm, another actuarial report using projections to predict an outcome based on specific input. Yes, well that really puts the matter to rest, doesn’t it? I wonder how the CBO arrives at their various and always shifting projections; could it be through actuarial reports whose reliability is directly tied to information that is or is not omitted from the applied numbers? I am not going to waste my time playing that game. You obviously do not mind, or maybe you have the time to waste; but ALL models are only as reliable as the data which is plugged into them. Do you see what I am saying? I have no more faith in these types of projections than I do in any other science that relies on assumptions to prove its points. You do not know how much this is going to end up costing us and neither does the government. I know, based on an observation of patterns throughout history, that it is going to be WAY more expensive than you, the current administration, or any panel of experts you can assemble to support your position, say it will. We have historically underestimated the cost of every single program we have created, not to mention some of the unforeseen consequences these programs have had on our civil liberties and the nature of our society changing from a can-do mentality to one that of the perpetual victim.

Posted by: lfrichar | May 12, 2010 1:54:27 PM
As I said, I recommend Atul Gawande’s article Testing, Testing and comment called Now What?
The answer is that is has the potential to lead us in that direction. The insurance companies and medical sector haven’t innovated sufficiently so now there will be other avenues of innovation. A step in the right direction.

“The insurance companies and medical sector haven’t innovated sufficiently so now there will be other avenues of innovation.”
mama, do you even know what you’re talking about here? What innovations are you expecting from the medical sector that will reduce costs that will not be accomplished by local communities?
“And that “through a new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, it offers to free communities and local health systems from existing payment rules, and let them experiment with ways to deliver better care at lower costs.”
Yeay!! More government programs telling us what to do. Existing payment rules, like the ones that lead the Mayo clinic in Arizona to stop taking Medicare patients? Medicare reimbursements for doctors and dentists stinks. And the paperwork is way too cumbersome. Why do people think that the government can innovate in a manner that reduces bureaucracy.

do you even know what you’re talking about here?
_____
Absolutely, examples in other industries are robust. If you don’t understand it, just say so rather than projecting— and maybe try reading the pieces slowly and carefully.

“Weird how they both still have longer life expectancies than America. So they pay half as much per person, live longer, yet – according to your cherry picking and undefined anecdotes (want to get into how those survival rates are calculated?) – they do worse at treating the major causes of death.”
You are stuggling today, jhw. I can understand your frustration – The highly heralded Age of Obama is imploding all around you…
BTW – Perhaps you are guilty of “cherry picking” data…Age expectency rates in the U.S. after the age of 40 are very comparable to those of Europeans.
BTW2 – Do you honestly believe that we Americans will pay less and live longer (or at least as long, i.e., receive same level of care) with socialized healthcare? If so, I have some unicorn riding lessons to sell you…

Ah,tjp, still wondering why I try to help him out with his epistemic closure– but even if what you stated was true, think about this: at least my reading comprehension is good, and I understand this paragraph without completely bungling it as others did:
“”through a new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, it offers to free communities and local health systems from existing payment rules, and let them experiment with ways to deliver better care at lower costs. In large part, it entrusts the task of devising cost-saving health-care innovation to communities like Boise and Boston and Buffalo, rather than to the drug and device companies and the public and private insurers that have failed to do so. This is the way costs will come down—or not.

OBAMA AND THE DEMS KNEW THIS YET STILL VOTED FOR IT – THEY ARE ALL CROOKS. We must stop them before America is gone as we know it.
Our government is broken – we need to kick them all out. Even the old Republicans they failed us all.
If we don’t than we are saying its ok to lie to us to get elected, we are just as stupid as Obama thinks we are.

Perhaps answering my other question would be a better response instead of childish rebuttals.
Posted by: J.R. | May 12, 2010 2:55:21 PM
Hmmm… well if you look up the meaning of “to free” as in “to free communities and local health systems from existing payment rules, and let them experiment with ways to deliver better care at lower costs” and then rethink your question so it makes sense, we could try taking it from there. Right now, your question doesn’t make sense as a rebuttal or retort or whatever you want to call it to what I posted.

Now you tell us. Thanks ABC and all the other Chicken Littles.

mama I bet you’re a hit in all social circles with that condescending tone.
“After we approach universal coverage, and the insurance exchanges and the structure are set up, and results from various experiments and projects come in, we will begin bending the cost curve, and the baby steps will lead to bigger steps which save way more than they cost, ultimately paying off. ”
This reminds of the south park underwear gnomes plot to make a profit from stealing underwear (1. steal underwear, 2. ?????, 3. Profit). You’re making assumptions that based on the results of these experiments we will be able to bend the cost curve down. How do you know these results will drive costs down? You don’t.
You read something about freeing up local health systems from cost containments could lead to savings and state is as if this is a forgone conclusion. But nothing is offered as an idea of what this innovation would entail.

@ p-mama:
“I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea of getting a different type of plan on an exchange– or a goverment plan with a likely supplement as its pretty clear to me that there could eventually be a vibrant supplement market.”
Well, this (supplemental insurance) is fairly common in countries with socialized medicine (I have friends in UK and Costa Rica with supplemental insurance). Supplemental insurance is an increased cost vs. status quo, isn’t it? So as I thought, “public option” is good enough for the masses as long as I can get supplemental coverage, right?
“And btw, for your status quo you talked about preferring you never responded as to whether that status quo is Medicare with no recision and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.”
Sorry, I admittedly do not read all of your posts as (a.) they are usually long, and (b.) you are usually just quoting a Leftie/Obama schill…

Posted by: J.R. | May 12, 2010 3:36:56 PM
Let’s review your intelligent post on the topic….
oh… wait.
there wasn’t one.
And you clearly didn’t read the articles I referenced.
But, hey, you’re up on the talking points from the way-successful “right.”
lol.

Hey everyone – be careful what you wish for. Health care can kill you as easily as it can help you.
Even many Dr’s will tell you that hospitals should be avoided if at all possible. There are too many diseases, mistakes, etc. Even more relevant is the fact that many “procedures” do little to cure you and in many instances make the problem worse.
We’ve got to be careful or our mortality rate will go up.

Did anyone else chuckle at the President’s retort in regards to taking on Rush Limbaugh in a round of golf?
“Limbaugh can play with himself.”
_______________________
Posted by: progressive mama | May 12, 2010 2:38:28 PM
Sadly it would be more fun than playing with NoBo.

And progressive mamma: Im sure you have extensive knowledge about how the HC bill will impact medicine. Certainly over me…afterall, you are a gym operator and Im an NP. Of course you know better….

DUH…DumBO lied again.

Any small child could see that this would never come in at the CBO projection.The fact that there is no tort reform ensures that defensive medicine will continue amd will continue to increase costs.Defensive medicine will continue as long as physicians have to deal with the threat of lawsuits,no matter how frivilous. The legal costs are tiny compared to the costs of tests,procedures and treatments done not to improve outcomes,but to prevent accusations of negligence.

Funny how this isn’t banner news but a buried story as low on the page as possible.
ABC “news” in the tank as always.

The problem with you is you lack even a glimmer of a hint of a whisper of intellectual honesty. You’re just a soulless partisan. Hence, despite your alleged profession, your credibility is nil.
Posted by: progressive mama | May 12, 2010 4:48:10 PM
Sounds like someone has there progressive nose out of joint with the financial facts of the HC bill coming to light. It all sounds good on paper to progressives but the reality usually doesn’t pan out. Seems a lot like growing your own food or using kitchen grease to power your car. May work for individuals. For the masses, not so much.
Maybe it will be different this time. Anyway, it’s a good thing we passed the bill so we could find out what’s in it. Keep the faith progressives!

Posted by: For The Record | May 12, 2010 5:29:07 PM
Congrats on landing your contract!

Sounds like someone has there progressive nose out of joint with the financial facts of the HC bill coming to light.
____________
Actually, since I pay attention and read the CBO blog, and health care blogs, I do get the difference between mandatory effects, which is what the CBO estimates, and the possible costs that we may incur, the “mays”, if you will, or discretionary costs, which are always separated from mandatory effects by the CBO.
What’s funny is that you all don’t understand it. lol.
I’m still strongly in favor of health care reform and will continue to work for it. I like parts of this legislation and look forward to further improvements.

The Center on Budget and Public Policy (CBPP) has a good post up called “Dispelling Confusion About New CBO Letter on Health Reform Law” by Paul Van de Water.
Bottom line: “While the new figures are indeed larger than the March ones, the biggest single reason is that they include the cost of renewing the Indian Health Service (IHS), totaling $39 billion over ten years. (Many of the health reform law’s provisions continue existing discretionary programs rather than create new ones.) As CBO’s letter points out, that $39 billion is simply a projection of what the federal government is currently spending for the IHS; not a single dollar represents additional real spending.
In short, yesterday’s CBO letter didn’t provide much new information about the health reform law, which, as CBO has found, will reduce the deficit over the next decade and beyond.”

Posted by: For The Record | May 12, 2010 5:29:07 PM
Congrats on landing your contract!
Posted by: tjp612 | May 12, 2010 6:08:53 PM
Thank you my friend. It is not without its trials however. I have a two hour round trip commute. I will have some long days. The hardest part will be getting up early again!

jhw539: “Nope, our current system isn’t rationed by for profit insurance companies.”
According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%
In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.

What’s funny is that you all don’t understand it. lol.
Posted by: progressive mama
We all know the “mays” are a sure thing. Call it what you want, vigilance or whatever, you know the same thing.
Posted by: smartlillena | May 12, 2010 8:46:21 PM
For all you “progressives” who understand so much, let’s take the Food Stamp Program as an example:
Among the official purposes of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 were strengthening the agricultural economy and providing improved levels of nutrition among low-income households.
The Agriculture Department estimated that participation in a national FSP would eventually reach 4 million, at a cost of $360 million annually.
In 1998, it was estimated that only about $0.17-$0.47 more is being spent on food for every food stamp dollar than was spent prior to individuals receiving food stamps.
Enrollment is currently over 30 million and could top $60 billion in costs.
Another inefficient government program established to “provide improved levels of nutrition among low-income households” costing billions more than expected – helping some, but at what cost? And are the nutrition levels improved? Where are we at with obesity amongst these food stamp recipients?

I’m betting we’d see some major hypocrisy.
I consider that a very safe bet.
Posted by: progressive mama
More progressive piffle.
Did you decline Bush’s tax-cuts-for-the-rich or are you a hypocrite too?

When the justification “improve outcomes” is used for this legislation, it perks up my proverbial BS detectors. What other possible motives could there be?
How about control of the money? More exactly, YOUR money in all the accounts you think you own under the tightest legal protections. This legislation dips into everyone’s deepest pockets to ensure control of everything $. And the financial provisions are being written into STATE law at the same time.
How about making more people more dependent? Hasn’t that been the idea behind a lot of things lately?

It would be interesting to know whether any of the additional funding for the IRS could be offset by reductions in cost realized from the efforts to detect and prosecute fraudulent health claims.
Posted by: Wellescent Health Blog | May 12, 2010 11:52:19 PM
——————————-
Well, no, probably not…. Costs are going to skyrocket…

fact is, there were several ss numbers associated with Obama…actually connected to the pres. In total there were 16 different but 3 can be absolutely attached to the man in the WH…this warrants more than a glance if only we had an independant media….insert eye roll…

insert eye roll…
Posted by: mjishernameo
—
Identity theft?
Leavenworth?

Agreed. Hypocritical. As is Al Gore building a mansion near the ocean and John Edwards, well… and there are others.
I bet Republicans do not have a stranglehold on hypocrisy. I consider THAT a very safe bet.
Posted by: For the Record | May 12, 2010 9:33:29 PM
Maybe not a stranglehold, but with Republicans, its ingrained– part of the DNA, and hence the rhetoric.
For example, the AP reports that under the Obama admin, which purposely focused its attention on fraud enforcement efforts, the government recovered $2.5 billion in overpayments for the Medicare trust fund last year as the Obama administration. The recovery is up from $1.9 billion in 2008.
Efforts are being made. We’re moving forward.
The focus in the comment section here? Bogus birther-oriented ss# stories about the President. (“He’s just not one of us” said in a dramatic stage whisper.
“No. He’s not creepy enough to be one of you,” says the bored progressive. “But hey, why don’t you bring up a tired talking point about Al Gore while representing for Palin and the demented tea party? That’ll really burn us.”
Eyeroll, indeed.)

correction: the AP reports that under the Obama admin, which purposely focused its attention on fraud enforcement efforts, the government recovered $2.5 billion in overpayments for the Medicare trust fund last year, in keeping with the Obama administration’s promise to turn up the heat in this regard.

Posted by: progessive mama
—
If they cheat on their taxes, knowingly lie (vigilance), defraud this country, misrepresent themselves or their legislation (GM loan,rigging CBO) in any way, let’s put their @$$es in jail. If they don’t enforce the existing laws of this country put their @$$es in jail. Once we’ve replaced 90% of the gov’t make it mandatory they and their families live on the salaries they’re paid and under the exact havoc they inflict on the rest of us. Put the fear of God into every one of them and it won’t matter what stripe they choose to call themselves.
Eyeroll, indeed.)

you gonna answer foggy’s question or not?
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | May 13, 2010 9:46:33 AM
It seemed to me that Foggy asked for mercy and magnanimity, more or less, in regards to my style. Since I respect boundaries, I’m giving her/him that space till he or she says game back on.

I suppose that’s 1 way of saying yes.
________
Though it looks more like a way of saying no.

I suppose that’s 1 way of saying yes.
________
Though it looks more like a way of saying no.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
Let us in on how you disappeared that post. And mine asking you what happened to it.
yes
hypocritical
materialistic
selfish
ROFLMFAO (still)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE – DECEMBER 23, 2009 — CBO ACCOUNTING OF HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL COSTS! Months ago, the CBO said, “To pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings … and thus overstate the improvement in the governnment’s fiscal position.”
$940 BILLION WAS AN ESTIMATE IN DECEMBER — NOW IT’S AN “ADDITIONAL” $115 BILLION!
GOD ONLY KNOWS HOW MUCH OBAMACARE WILL REALLY COST US — WE’LL FIND OUT “AFTER THE FACT”!
This is the most corrupt administration in American history.
See ya in November!

progressive mama wrote: “No answers, just racist signage and a whole lot of anger and fist waving.”
.
That was the pro-illegal immigration rallies. Your “news” source had them mislabeled.

Everyone just Vote the exact same way you always Vote. I’m positive that the next time it will come out differently… ACORN is re-badged and congress re-financed, under fine sounding new patriotic names, so of course it will. Ah hah hah hah. The US citizens deserve exactly what they Vote for…. Dependency :>)

well, think of it this way the cost of the Irag war is near 750 billion (and risin) + lives lost..Afghanistan: 365 billion and rising + lives lost… i say it’s a good deal, being that God forbid we may SAVE lives..

Actually we are getting widespread reports of COST REDUCTION!