NYPost: Truly a Turkey ($400 million/page;$2.3 million/word.)

[spursncowboys]

Truly a turkey

By MICHAEL TANNER
Last Updated: 2:45 AM, November 20, 2009
Posted: 1:18 AM, November 20, 2009
Just in time for Thanksgiv ing, Sen. Harry Reid has given us a giant turkey of a health-care bill. At 2,074 pages and more than 370,000 words, it's officially "scored" as costing $849 billion over 10 years -- $400 million per page, or $2.3 million per word.
But that doesn't come close to measuring its true cost. The bill uses various accounting gimmicks to hide its true cost. For example the bill doesn't include more than $200 billion needed to prevent a 21 percent cut in Medicare next year. [The CBO "score" actually assumes Reid cuts Medicare 23 percent -- Ed.] That cost has been spun off into a separate bill, even though the Senate voted down that approach last month.
Moreover (as Jeffrey H. Anderson notes (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/another_set_of_cooked_books_loFmlm5OEIdYuzuJySXBaN )), much of the spending is back-loaded. The bill doesn't start spending until 2014, and only costs $9 billion that year. But by 2019, the annual cost hits $196 billion. The minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee reports that, if you factor out all the budget gimmicks and look at the 10 years of actual implementation, the cost is closer to $2.5 trillion.
And, while Reid brags that the bill will reduce the deficit by $127 billion over the next 10 years (which is about $50 billion less than the deficit the government ran last month alone), even that tiny savings depends on budget gimmicks and the willingness of future Congresses to make huge cuts in Medicare spending. Any wagers on the chances of that actually happening? In fact, even the CBO warns that it will be "difficult" to achieve the predicted savings.
Perhaps more important, much of the cost has simply been shifted from the federal budget onto the backs of workers, businesses and state governments. Judging by previous reforms, as much as 60 percent of the cost won't show up in government accounting.
To pay for all the new spending, Reid would enact at least 15 new or increased taxes totaling more than $493 billion.
But the cost alone doesn't begin to describe how intrusive this bill would be for the average American. For instance, it would require everyone to buy a government-designed insurance plan, even if it was more expensive than their current policy. Failure to comply brings a penalty of up to $6,750 for a family of four.
Another provision would mandate that employers provide insurance to their workers. If they fail to do so, and if even a single worker qualified for federal subsidies, the employer could be fined up to $750 per employee. The CBO estimates that those penalties will amount to more than $28 billion.
Unemployment is now 10.2 percent, and the Senate bill will make it more costly to hire workers. And because the penalty only applies in the case of subsidy-eligible workers, it is low-wage and unskilled workers that will suffer the most.
Of course, the plan contains the government-run "public option" that many experts believe will ultimately crowd out private insurers. And don't be misled by Reid's "opt-out" provision: It comes with so many restrictions that it will be nearly impossible for a state to actually opt out.
Besides, there won't be any opting out of the taxes that will ultimately be necessary to pay for it.
Finally, the bill sets the stage for government-imposed rationing. If you think the recent controversy over mammograms is something, just wait until the dozens of new boards, commissions and agencies created by this bill get to work. The "reform" also gives the secretary of Health and Human Services broad new powers to determine "quality," "efficiency" and "appropriate utilization."
At first, these restrictions would only apply to government programs like Medicare, but they'd create the framework for eventual extension to private insurance.
If Reid gets the 60 votes he needs to pass this, US taxpayers, businesses and patients can expect to pay a high price for this congressional feast.

[coyotes_geek]

But........but........but I thought it was supposed to be "budget neutral"............

[boutons_deux]

"it would require everyone to buy a government-designed insurance plan"

You Lie

Typical trash job by a Murdoch shithole.

[coyotes_geek]

"it would require everyone to buy a government-designed insurance plan"

You Lie

Typical trash job by a Murdoch shithole.

Does the bill require everyone to buy an insurance plan?

Does the bill establish government mandated requirements as to what those plans have to cover?

[boutons_deux]

"Does the bill require everyone to buy an insurance plan"

no

Does the bill establish government mandated requirements as to what those plans have to cover

probably

[Winehole23]

"Does the bill require everyone to buy an insurance plan"

noThe individual mandate is out, then? When did that happen?

[spursncowboys]

The individual mandate is out, then? When did that happen?
?

[Marcus Bryant]

What's out of the Senate version are the criminal penalties for individuals failing to spend money on health insurance. Yet there remain financial penalties for failing to spend your money not as Uncle Sam wants you to. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see the criminal penalty creep back in at some point.

Of course, if politicians discover that they can force individuals to spend under penalty of jail, look out, especially when considering that 70% of GDP or what not is tied to the sale of consumer goods.

[coyotes_geek]

The individual mandate is out, then? When did that happen?

It didn't.

[Marcus Bryant]

The inevitable conclusion of the managed economy will have the state making thrift a crime. Some progress.

[CosmicCowboy]

Crazy stuff. And they wonder why companies don't hire full time employees anymore. Already, food service and retail run on "part time" help. The only full time employees in a store are managers. Expect this trend to continue into all facets of the economy. Think your degree will get you a full time job with benefits with a fortune 500 company? Think again. They will be able to do the math too, and the job you want will become a "contract" position. The unintended consequences of this governments interference in private enterprise are staggering.

[Winehole23]

The unintended consequences of this governments interference in private enterprise are staggering.Could be. Reading present economic conditions as somehow consequent to Obama's policies since January of this year strikes me as tendentious, but you're likely right about the future.

As a description of the past, your pronouncement is utterly uncontroversial IMO.

[Marcus Bryant]

One day the state and its subjects are the largest creditors in the history of mankind, the next, the largest group of damn fool debtors ever.

[boutons_deux]

if you have insurance, you aren't required to buy insurance, duh.

for-profit-only insurance companies are protected by employees with health plans being denied access to exhanges/public option. You libertarian/right-wingers don't care about that denial of consumer choice?

[coyotes_geek]

if you have insurance, you aren't required to buy insurance, duh.

If you have insurance, your insurance still has to follow the new government mandated coverage requirements so the effects are the same. You still end up with the government requiring you to have insurance, and the government telling your insurance what all it has to provide.


for-profit-only insurance companies are protected by employees with health plans being denied access to exhanges/public option. You libertarian/right-wingers don't care about that denial of consumer choice?

Come up with a public option that isn't taxpayer subsidized and I'll welcome the additional consumer option it would bring.

[boutons_deux]

"public option that isn't taxpayer subsidized"

There is already a very expensive, wasteful public option that has always been taxpayer subsidized, aka, public/county hospitals, and private ERs that accept uninsured then seek reimbursement from county/state/federal funds. Why aren't you bitching about that, now or ever?

[Wild Cobra]

if you have insurance, you aren't required to buy insurance, duh.

for-profit-only insurance companies are protected by employees with health plans being denied access to exhanges/public option. You libertarian/right-wingers don't care about that denial of consumer choice?

I'm all for consumer choice. That's why I don't want the government telling us what to do.

I am not against the government helping those who need help and have made good faith efforts to help themselves. However, the way the government is doing this, if flat out an assault on freedom.

[Wild Cobra]

Crazy stuff. And they wonder why companies don't hire full time employees anymore. Already, food service and retail run on "part time" help. The only full time employees in a store are managers. Expect this trend to continue into all facets of the economy. Think your degree will get you a full time job with benefits with a fortune 500 company? Think again. They will be able to do the math too, and the job you want will become a "contract" position. The unintended consequences of this governments interference in private enterprise are staggering.
Because of the government infringing on the free market, buy regulation, it is too expensive to higher full time employees.

When ever the government says "I'm here to Help you," better hold on to your wallet!

[Wild Cobra]

If you have insurance, your insurance still has to follow the new government mandated coverage requirements so the effects are the same. You still end up with the government requiring you to have insurance, and the government telling your insurance what all it has to provide.

Worse yet, the extra mandates will make insurance prices skyrocket.

[coyotes_geek]

"public option that isn't taxpayer subsidized"

There is already a very expensive, wasteful public option that has always been taxpayer subsidized, aka, public/county hospitals, and private ERs that accept uninsured then seek reimbursement from county/state/federal funds. Why aren't you bitching about that, now or ever?

I have bitched about that. I've said that local hospitals either need to be given the authority to turn away non emergency patients who can't pay or they need to be given tools that will help them recoup those costs from the people directly via methods like garnishing their paychecks.

Outside of that, I realize there's always going to be some level of "leakage" in terms of capturing costs, but at least when it's kept local it's contained within an agency that is required to operate on balanced budgets, and at a level where the taxpayers have greater control over the situation. Let each community decide for themselves how they want to handle the problem.

[boutons_deux]

what's the difference between "garnishing paychecks" to recover a single patient's bills after treatment

vs

mandating everybody to pay into an insurance pool to cover individual bills before treatment?

Which makes more sense?

A strong public option that everybody can pay into to create a huge premium pool plus single-payer is the way to go. Of course, the corps will put their own profits above delivering health care, and screw up Congress, who puts their re-election/campaign finance ahead of the nation's interests.

[coyotes_geek]

"public option that isn't taxpayer subsidized"

There is already a very expensive, wasteful public option that has always been taxpayer subsidized, aka, public/county hospitals, and private ERs that accept uninsured then seek reimbursement from county/state/federal funds. Why aren't you bitching about that, now or ever?

Oh by the way, this is a problem that only becomes worse when the government cuts medicare/medicaid payments to the states.

[spursncowboys]

I have bitched about that. I've said that local hospitals either need to be given the authority to turn away non emergency patients who can't pay or they need to be given tools that will help them recoup those costs from the people directly via methods like garnishing their paychecks.

Outside of that, I realize there's always going to be some level of "leakage" in terms of capturing costs, but at least when it's kept local it's contained within an agency that is required to operate on balanced budgets, and at a level where the taxpayers have greater control over the situation. Let each community decide for themselves how they want to handle the problem.

Even putting it on peoples' credit score might sway people to pay their bill.

[coyotes_geek]

what's the difference between "garnishing paychecks" to recover a single patient's bills after treatment

vs

mandating everybody to pay into an insurance pool to cover individual bills before treatment?

Which makes more sense?

A strong public option that everybody can pay into to create a huge premium pool plus single-payer is the way to go. Of course, the corps will put their own profits above delivering health care, and screw up Congress, who puts their re-election/campaign finance ahead of the nation's interests.

Make it where the members of the public option are the only ones paying into the premium pool and I'm fine with it. But that's not what's being proposed. What's being proposed is a public option where the preimum pool is funded by gutting medicare and medicaid and tax increases that directly or indirectly hit everyone whether they're part of the P.O. or not.

[Nbadan]

Too big to fail?

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 24, 2009
Filed at 2:41 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans love to get their hands on the Democrats' health care legislation. They show it to the cameras at every opportunity, even piling one version on top of another to make a big pile look even bigger.

Although they complain they don't have time to read all of it, they found the time to tape it together, page by page, so they could roll it up the steps of the Capitol like super-sized toilet paper and show how very long it is.

No one really expects brevity when reinventing something as complex and huge as the nation's health insurance system, which accounts for one-sixth of the economy. Indeed, legislation of comparable size was used to redefine an area of much more limited federal responsibility, education. That was the No Child Left Behind Act from the agenda of Republican President George W. Bush.

Size only matters in the health care debate because Republicans have turned the length of the legislation into a symbol: Big, unwieldy bill means big, overreaching government. Even bigger when you display double-spaced copies with double-wide margins and large print.

The Spin meter (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/24/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Legislation-Inflation.html)

[coyotes_geek]

.

[coyotes_geek]

Even putting it on peoples' credit score might sway people to pay their bill.

Not a bad idea.

[boutons_deux]

"funded by gutting medicare and medicaid"

You Lie

[coyotes_geek]

"funded by gutting medicare and medicaid"

You Lie

Prove it.

[SnakeBoy]

Don't worry folks, they'll get that cost cut in half by getting the final bill up to 4148 pages long.

[Nbadan]

Seriously, this attack about the bill's length has to be the most weakest ever.....'I'm gonna bitch about a bill I didn't read but that is god-darn long"

[boutons_deux]

"Prove it."

you're a right wing nut, QED.

point to the page where the bill guts Medicare/caid.

Cutting the costs of fraud and waste by the private companies screwing over the govt is different from cutting care delivered to patients.

[coyotes_geek]

you're a right wing nut, QED.

really? the wing nut card? from you? :lol


point to the page where the bill guts Medicare/caid.

You can take your pick from any one of the hundreds of different news stories over the last couple of months citing how medicare and medicaid reimbursements to the states will be cut.


Cutting the costs of fraud and waste by the private companies screwing over the govt is different from cutting care delivered to patients.

Huh? How is cutting medicare reimbursements going to reduce fraud and waste by the private companies when the private companies aren't the ones administering medicare? You might want to think about going back and trying this again. And for your own sake, please don't come back with something about how the government is going to clean up the fraud and waste in it's own house because you'll only make yourself look foolish.