CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion

[spursncowboys]

CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion




By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so.
Penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, would raise $161 billion over that time-frame. That brings the net cost of the bill to $894 billion through 2019, CBO said.
House Democrats have seized on that net cost figure to claim that their bill is below President Barack Obama's upper limit which he set for health-care legislation of $900 billion.
The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday.
The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO.
CBO also said the House bill would not add to the deficit in the first decade beyond 2019--a key condition for support from fiscally conservative House Democrats.
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, in a Thursday letter to House Democratic Chairmen, cautioned that his estimates are preliminary and "subject to substantial uncertainty."
House leaders capped weeks of internal negotiations among Democrats today by unveiling the sweeping legislation. They aim to bring the bill to a vote by the full House by the end of next week.
The bill would create exchanges where people who do not have access to health insurance from their employer could buy coverage. It would create a government- sponsored plan to compete with private plans.
The bill would reduce the number of uninsured in the U.S. by 36 million by 2019. By that time, 30 million people would be covered through the insurance exchanges, of which 6 million would be covered by the public option.
An expansion in eligibility rules for the Medicaid program would bring an additional 15 million enrollees to Medicaid by 2019, CBO said.






http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200910291728dowjonesdjonline000 980&title=cbo-puts-house-health-bill-total-cost-at-1055-trillion

[MannyIsGod]

The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO.

[Nbadan]

Saves lives and money...what's not to like?

[SnakeBoy]

Saves lives and money...what's not to like?

Right on Brotha! It's gonna be great!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Right on Brotha! It's gonna be great!

You don't need to be treated. Boycott healthcare!

[spursncowboys]

Taxpayer-Funding of Abortion Doesn't Send Thrill up Chris Matthews's Leg
by John McCormack
Two Democrats, pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and pro-choice Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, talked about abortion in the health care bill on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Yarmuth claims that the bill maintains the status quo on abortion, but that just isn't true. Current law prevents federal funds from paying directly for elective abortions or for insurance plans that cover elective abortions.

Update: Transcript here.

[spursncowboys]

Taxpayer-Funding of Abortion Doesn't Send Thrill up Chris Matthews's Leg
by John McCormack
Two Democrats, pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and pro-choice Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, talked about abortion in the health care bill on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Yarmuth claims that the bill maintains the status quo on abortion, but that just isn't true. Current law prevents federal funds from paying directly for elective abortions or for insurance plans that cover elective abortions.

Update: Transcript here.

[spursncowboys]

1,990-Page Health Care Bill Pays for Abortions, Cuts Medicare, Raises Taxes, Fees, and the Deficit
by John McCormack

Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the House Democrats' merged health-care bill today. It weighs in at 1,990 pages--you can read them all here. Tevi Troy has compiled a good list of who will be unhappy with the bill here.

The bill purportedly costs just under $900 billion over ten years (...UPDATE: Here's the CBO score; the bill would actually cost over $1 trillion). It will be paid for with a 5.4% surtax on individuals making more than $500,000, a 2.5% tax on medical device manufacturers, up to an 8% payroll tax on businesses with more than $500,000 in payroll that don't provide employees health insurance, "between $125 billion and $150 billion" in cuts for pharmaceutical companies -- "almost twice the $80 billion they agreed to under the White House deal" -- and a $2,500 limit on contributions to tax-exempt health flexible spending accounts.

The bill is also paid for through Medicare "savings" (read: "cuts"). The Democrats claim that the bill would reduce the deficit by $30 billion over 10 years (after that, things look iffy). The problem is that the Democrats assume that Medicare reimbursement rates will be slashed by 20 percent. But House Democrats introduced separate legislation today to eliminate the scheduled Medicare cuts--the so-called "doc fix" bill. So, if you add that bill with the health-care bill, the health-care bill would add more than $200 billion to the deficit, rather than cut $30 billion, over 10 years.

And what do we get in return? A government-run insurance plan or "public option," an expansion of Medicaid to those making 150% the poverty line, subsidies or "affordability credits" for those making between 150% and 400% of the poverty line, and a raft of coverage restrictions for insurance companies. Best of all, the Washington Post notes that the "insurance industry would face new coverage restrictions," and the bill would "require health plans to allow young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies until their 27th birthdays." (I'm pleased to know that the Democrats want to extend Ezra Klein's childhood for two more years.)

And, of course, the bill provides coverage for elective abortions for those on the public plan as well as for those who purchase federally subsidized plans. The bill includes the language of the Energy and Commerce committee's Capps amendment.

President Obama said during his health-care address to Congress that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." The (false) talking point from the White House is that the Hyde amendment prevents federal-funding of abortions, but in fact that amendment would not apply to the health-care bill.

Pelosi-care is a mess. No wonder the public remains opposed to health care reform.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/1990page_health_care_bill_pays.asp

[spursncowboys]

1,990-Page Health Care Bill Pays for Abortions, Cuts Medicare, Raises Taxes, Fees, and the Deficit
by John McCormack

Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the House Democrats' merged health-care bill today. It weighs in at 1,990 pages--you can read them all here. Tevi Troy has compiled a good list of who will be unhappy with the bill here.

The bill purportedly costs just under $900 billion over ten years (...UPDATE: Here's the CBO score; the bill would actually cost over $1 trillion). It will be paid for with a 5.4% surtax on individuals making more than $500,000, a 2.5% tax on medical device manufacturers, up to an 8% payroll tax on businesses with more than $500,000 in payroll that don't provide employees health insurance, "between $125 billion and $150 billion" in cuts for pharmaceutical companies -- "almost twice the $80 billion they agreed to under the White House deal" -- and a $2,500 limit on contributions to tax-exempt health flexible spending accounts.

The bill is also paid for through Medicare "savings" (read: "cuts"). The Democrats claim that the bill would reduce the deficit by $30 billion over 10 years (after that, things look iffy). The problem is that the Democrats assume that Medicare reimbursement rates will be slashed by 20 percent. But House Democrats introduced separate legislation today to eliminate the scheduled Medicare cuts--the so-called "doc fix" bill. So, if you add that bill with the health-care bill, the health-care bill would add more than $200 billion to the deficit, rather than cut $30 billion, over 10 years.

And what do we get in return? A government-run insurance plan or "public option," an expansion of Medicaid to those making 150% the poverty line, subsidies or "affordability credits" for those making between 150% and 400% of the poverty line, and a raft of coverage restrictions for insurance companies. Best of all, the Washington Post notes that the "insurance industry would face new coverage restrictions," and the bill would "require health plans to allow young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies until their 27th birthdays." (I'm pleased to know that the Democrats want to extend Ezra Klein's childhood for two more years.)

And, of course, the bill provides coverage for elective abortions for those on the public plan as well as for those who purchase federally subsidized plans. The bill includes the language of the Energy and Commerce committee's Capps amendment.

President Obama said during his health-care address to Congress that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." The (false) talking point from the White House is that the Hyde amendment prevents federal-funding of abortions, but in fact that amendment would not apply to the health-care bill.

Pelosi-care is a mess. No wonder the public remains opposed to health care reform.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/1990page_health_care_bill_pays.asp

[spursncowboys]

The Inevitable Debacle -- By: The Editors
by [email protected] (The Editors)
The latest health-care bill, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is more of the same. Like every other Democratic bill before Congress, this “comprehensive reform” has two major features: First, it transforms insurance into a product that few rational people would buy. Second, it forces them to buy it....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBjOGUxNGQ0MDVhMGMxOTRlNGMwODAxMjlkMDRkNTQ=

[spursncowboys]

The Inevitable Debacle -- By: The Editors
by [email protected] (The Editors)
The latest health-care bill, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is more of the same. Like every other Democratic bill before Congress, this “comprehensive reform” has two major features: First, it transforms insurance into a product that few rational people would buy. Second, it forces them to buy it....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBjOGUxNGQ0MDVhMGMxOTRlNGMwODAxMjlkMDRkNTQ=

[admiralsnackbar]

Echo echo echo

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.steveheimoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/champagne-pop-300x287.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

So if we combine this bill with another bill thats not the original bill then this bill is now more expensive?

Ok. That seems like a completely legit way to look at this bill and frame it.

[spursncowboys]

So if we combine this bill with another bill thats not the original bill then this bill is now more expensive?

Ok. That seems like a completely legit way to look at this bill and frame it.

:lol Yeah because They aren't combining the cost with the notion they will later down the line cut.

The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs-


The problem is that the Democrats assume that Medicare reimbursement rates will be slashed by 20 percent. But House Democrats introduced separate legislation today to eliminate the scheduled Medicare cuts--the so-called "doc fix" bill.

The entire cost is based on the idea that the Congress will be able to do something they have not been able to do ever-cut medicare costs.

[DarrinS]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28904.html





It runs more pages than War and Peace, has nearly five times as many words as the Torah, and its tables of contents alone run far longer than this story.


The House health care bill unveiled Thursday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. With an estimated 10-year cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word. .

And for some members, that may not be enough.


A “robust” public option can’t be found in the bill. Neither can the word “doctor” – save for a few references to degrees. No “cost curve” is bent. No “blue pill” is dispensed.


“Death” and “taxes” are both in there, but “death panel” is not.


The text defines dozens of words and phrases, including “family” (“an individual and . . . the individual’s dependents”), “health insurance coverage,” “exchange-eligible individual” and “Indian.”


And for those who cry “read the bill,” beware. There are plenty of paragraphs like this one:


“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.


The section deals with “incorporating productivity improvements into market basket updates that do not already incorporate such improvements,” if that helps.


Optimistic lawmakers say it could take a week just to get through the bill’s text.


“I’ll have to call an emergency meeting of my staff and drop the customary procedure of me reading and my staff not reading,” joked House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), who famously told filmmaker Michael Moore that lawmakers “don’t read most of the bills.”


“It’s one thing to read it,” said Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), a lawyer who voted against the first version of the bill on its way through the Energy and Commerce Committee. “It’s another thing to understand it when it’s written in legalese.”


When given the bill’s dimensions, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) noted that some members are faster readers than others.


“That’s one afternoon for Barney Frank,” he said. :rolleyes


Republicans aide said a print-out of the bill weighs more than 19 pounds and stands nearly nine inches tall.


North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry, 34 years old and a few inches taller than 5 feet, said the bill could act as a ”booster seat.”


Democrats say the essence of the bill isn’t much different from the three sister bills they moved through committees this summer, which came in around 1,000 pages.


If you read those, they say, you pretty much know what’s in this one.


“It’s almost a complete certainty that we have already discussed and debated almost every element that’s in this bill,” said Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)


McHenry took issue with the notion that the 2,000-page bill hasn’t changed much from the earlier, 1,000-page versions. To prove the point, he pulled out a Democratic-written summary of the changes.


All eight pages of them.


Asked why the House will vote on the roughly 400,000-word bill in a week when it takes a congregation a year to read the 80,000-word Torah at a synagogue, Rothman, who is Jewish, exhibited the wisdom of a Talmudic scholar.


“It only takes a year because you read one section a week,” he said.


But Republican Rep. Joe Barton, who is Texan, said the bill is “about four reams of paper” that add up to the American public “getting reamed.”