CBO ups health care cost projections

[jack sommerset]

Well, it looks like the dems didn't give the refs all the information for the cost of health care. Looking at another 115 BILLION.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.


The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.

Republicans pounced on the news, which they called another sign that the Obama administration makes promises it cannot deliver.

“The American people wanted one thing above all from health care reform: lower costs, which Washington Democrats promised, but they did not deliver,” said House Minority Leader John A Boehner (R-Ohio). “It was clearly irresponsible for Washington Democrats to force this legislation through Congress without being truthful about its full impact on the nation’s finances. Republicans are fighting to repeal this job-killing health care law and replace it with reforms focused first on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.”

But a Democratic leadership aide on Capitol Hill said the Congress will have to stay within the budget.

"Just like other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits,” the aide said. “Republicans fighting to repeal reform can say what they want, but the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs — period.”


The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.

The CBO released the estimates in response to a request from California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. A spokeswoman for Lewis said the inquiry was filed before the House voted on the bill.

“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.

The CBO estimated in March that the gross cost of the overhaul would be $940 billion over 10 years. The net cost was estimated at $788 billion over 10 years. But the group cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.

The figures represent estimates as to how Congress will decide to spend money. The CBO cautions that lawmakers could decide to spend less. They would still have to respect the administration’s nonsecurity discretionary spending freeze.

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to need $5 billion to $10 billion to implement changes in Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and insurance industry reforms, according to CBO estimates.


The nonpartisan CBO expects the Internal Revenue Service to spend another $5 billion to $10 billion on implementing the rules regarding premiums and cost-sharing credits.

An administration official cautioned that Congress doesn't always spend all that it is authorized to and that lawmakers would have to make other cuts to make up for any new spending they approve to stay within the budget and avoid adding to the deficit.

"The Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it," said Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman. "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."

The legislation says that the agencies would receive the funding to implement the programs through the appropriations process.

“The law establishes a number of new programs and activities, as well as authorizing new funding for existing programs,” CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf said in the letter. “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.”

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, it looks like the dems didn't give the refs all the information for the cost of health care. Looking at another 115 BILLION.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.


The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.

Republicans pounced on the news, which they called another sign that the Obama administration makes promises it cannot deliver.

“The American people wanted one thing above all from health care reform: lower costs, which Washington Democrats promised, but they did not deliver,” said House Minority Leader John A Boehner (R-Ohio). “It was clearly irresponsible for Washington Democrats to force this legislation through Congress without being truthful about its full impact on the nation’s finances. Republicans are fighting to repeal this job-killing health care law and replace it with reforms focused first on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.”

But a Democratic leadership aide on Capitol Hill said the Congress will have to stay within the budget.

"Just like other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits,” the aide said. “Republicans fighting to repeal reform can say what they want, but the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs — period.”


The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.

The CBO released the estimates in response to a request from California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. A spokeswoman for Lewis said the inquiry was filed before the House voted on the bill.

“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.

The CBO estimated in March that the gross cost of the overhaul would be $940 billion over 10 years. The net cost was estimated at $788 billion over 10 years. But the group cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.

The figures represent estimates as to how Congress will decide to spend money. The CBO cautions that lawmakers could decide to spend less. They would still have to respect the administration’s nonsecurity discretionary spending freeze.

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to need $5 billion to $10 billion to implement changes in Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and insurance industry reforms, according to CBO estimates.


The nonpartisan CBO expects the Internal Revenue Service to spend another $5 billion to $10 billion on implementing the rules regarding premiums and cost-sharing credits.

An administration official cautioned that Congress doesn't always spend all that it is authorized to and that lawmakers would have to make other cuts to make up for any new spending they approve to stay within the budget and avoid adding to the deficit.

"The Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it," said Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman. "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."

The legislation says that the agencies would receive the funding to implement the programs through the appropriations process.

“The law establishes a number of new programs and activities, as well as authorizing new funding for existing programs,” CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf said in the letter. “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.”


let it go jackie...

[2centsworth]

let it go jackie...

one thing that won't be let go is the health care debate. It's going to cost the Dems majorities in both houses, because of reports like this.

[boutons_deux]

The Huffington Post May 14, 2010


Ethan Rome

Executive Director, Health Care for America Now!

Posted: May 14, 2010 08:31 AM




Rate Regulation Needed to Restrain Big Insurance Greed



It seems that WellPoint CEO Angela Braly hasn't been happy with British Petroleum (BP) grabbing all the headlines lately as the most reckless, buck-passing, greedy corporation. So she unwisely decided to pick a fight with President Obama, who rightly used his Saturday address to the nation to criticize the insurance industry -- and her company in particular. President Obama attacked the insurance industry's "perverse practice of dropping people's coverage when they get sick" and described Americans as "held hostage to an insurance industry that jacks up premiums and drops coverage as they please".

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has also been fighting with Braly and WellPoint and for good reason: like the other big for-profit insurers, they've been making money hand over fist -- at our expense. Their turbo-charged greed is out of control, and their lack of any moral compass is shocking.

Yesterday Heath Care for America Now released a report on insurance industry profits and the facts are stunning: In the worst economy since the Great Depression, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies recorded huge profit gains in the first three months of 2010 compared with a year earlier. WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc. and Cigna Corp. reported combined net income of $3.2 billion, a 31 percent leap from the same period in 2009. Together they had already set a full-year profit record in 2009.

So how do they do it? They put profits for Wall Street and bloated CEO salaries above all else. It's called greed and they're good at it.

HCAN's report shows that the top five insurers made record profits by covering fewer people, offering worse benefits, providing less care and charging consumers and employers more in the process. It is an obscene business model: they sell people a product, make it worse but more expensive over time, and then deny people the service they've paid for when they need it.

So while their profits went up, their combined commercial enrollment fell by a staggering 2.8 million people since 2008. And they spent less on health care and more on profits and excessive CEO pay.

In 1993, the leading health insurers spent about 95 cents of every premium dollar on health care. Today, insurers have cut spending on actual medical care to around 81 percent. For the five largest health insurers, the difference between 81 and 95 percent of premiums in 2009 equaled about $25 billion.

This adds up to skyrocketing premiums that America's families and businesses can't afford.

But back to Braly and WellPoint Inc.

In February, WellPoint subsidiary Anthem Blue Cross announced plans to jack up rates by as much as 39% in California. On February 24, Braly testified before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to defend the proposed increases, saying they were justified by rising medical costs.

To say Braly was casual with the truth is generous. In fact, from 2000 to 2008, family premiums for the big insurers grew twice as fast as medical inflation, five times faster than general inflation and three times faster than wages.

And then, as we have all recently learned, it got worse; an independent auditor hired by the state showed that WellPoint's rate request was based on faulty numbers and should be drastically lower. Maybe WellPoint had bad intentions, or maybe they're just bad at math. Either way, the rate hike request was outrageous, unjustified and bad for consumers.

During this same period, the Reuters news service reported that WellPoint was engaged in one of the most unconscionable and reprehensible business practices imaginable. WellPoint was systematically targeting women with breast cancer to find ways to cancel their insurance when they needed it the most.

Not many people knew what an "algorithm" was before the Reuters investigation. I sure didn't. In this case, it's WellPoint's grotesque mathematical equation used by a computer to find ways to drop customers (such as women diagnosed with breast cancer) after they get sick. As a result, women are left to fight both cancer and WellPoint. This is appalling corporate behavior. Even by the standards of people who believe it's okay to do just about anything to make money, WellPoint went too far.

Because of the cooked California numbers, on April 28 HCAN urged all states that allow WellPoint to sell policies to study whether other rate hikes were based on faulty numbers. In a letter to governors and insurance commissioners, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius wrote that states lacking the authority to reject rate hikes should pass laws enabling them to do so. The Health Insurance Rate Authority Act of 2010, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Jan Schakowsky, is the logical next step.

The new health care reform law will guarantee health security for all Americans, end the worst insurance company abuses, and hold insurance companies accountable in a number of unprecedented ways. The Health Insurance Rate Authority Act of 2010 will build on the protections in the new law. It will give federal and state governments authority to review and reject unjustified rate increases. And it will stop Big Insurance from exploiting differences in state laws and taking advantage of the people who live in the 26 states lacking authority to reject or modify requested premium hikes.

Yesterday Health Care for America Now sent an e-mail asking our activists to call their Member of Congress and urge support for the Health Insurance Rate Authority Act of 2010 to make health care more affordable for businesses and families. In addition to calling Congress, feel free to call Angela Braly and let her know you're disgusted by her company's behavior and her misguided defense of it. Her number at WellPoint's headquarters is (317) 287-6000.

=============

The health-profit-care industry, providers and insurers, are just another impregnable, corrupted, oligarchic, uncompetitive, monopoly-escaping power block fleecing Americans of their financial security.

[George Gervin's Afro]

one thing WE WON'T be let go is the health care debate. WE hope it's going to cost the Dems majorities in both houses, because of reports like this.

[ChumpDumper]

So what are Republicans going to do when they get back into office?

[MannyIsGod]

one thing that won't be let go is the health care debate. It's going to cost the Dems majorities in both houses, because of reports like this.

I don't even think the House will flip, but I'd be willing to bet every cent I had that the Senate isn't going to flip.

In any event, Health Care has nothing to do with it and the Economy has everything to do with it.

[2centsworth]

I don't even think the House will flip, but I'd be willing to bet every cent I had that the Senate isn't going to flip.

In any event, Health Care has nothing to do with it and the Economy has everything to do with it.

You must really believe your own propaganda, because it makes no difference to post it on ST. To say whether congress will flip has NOTHING to do with HealthCare is delusional.

What's resonating with the swing voters is massive deficits and debts. Healthcare was sold as a way to solve that problem. A joke!

You think the economy is bad now, the Fed has been instructed to stop printing money, so wait come Nov. AFTERSHOCK!

[George Gervin's Afro]

You must really believe your own propaganda, because it makes no difference to post it on ST. To say whether congress will flip has NOTHING to do with HealthCare is delusional.

What's resonating with the swing voters is massive deficits and debts. Healthcare was sold as a way to solve that problem. A joke!

You think the economy is bad now, the Fed has been instructed to stop printing money, so wait come Nov. AFTERSHOCK!

So if the dems keep control of all three branches then what?

[boutons_deux]

"with the swing voters is massive deficits and debts"

Both are mostly due to precipitous drops in federal/local taxes due to unemployment and dropping values of properties, foreclosed properties, residential and commercial, all of which was caused by the Banskters' Great Depression.

The Repugs are screaming about deficits and jobs as if the Dems caused them, but 8 years of Repug Reign of Error and bullshit wars were the main causes.

Again, what are the Repugs SPECIFIC plans to restore 8M jobs and reduce the deficit.

Incomes tax rates are are much lower rates than when the economy was growin from 1945 - 1975, even lower than early 1990s.

As we see with California, cutting taxes is part of the class war, haves vs have-nots, with the poor, young, disabled, elderly, sickos getting screwed first and most.

[2centsworth]

"with the swing voters is massive deficits and debts"

Both are mostly due to precipitous drops in federal/local taxes due to unemployment and dropping values of properties, foreclosed properties, residential and commercial, all of which was caused by the Banskters' Great Depression.

The Repugs are screaming about deficits and jobs as if the Dems caused them, but 8 years of Repug Reign of Error and bullshit wars were the main causes.

Again, what are the Repugs SPECIFIC plans to restore 8M jobs and reduce the deficit.

Incomes tax rates are are much lower rates than when the economy was growin from 1945 - 1975, even lower than early 1990s.

As we see with California, cutting taxes is part of the class war, haves vs have-nots, with the poor, young, disabled, elderly, sickos getting screwed first and most.


Repubs are evil racist and Dems are demons. I get it, status quo.

[coyotes_geek]

Of course it's more expensive. The price tag will get even more expensive that this once the geezers scare congress out of raiding medicare to help fund this thing. It's a shitty plan that's 100% absolutely guaranteed to cost way more and deliver far less than what was originally promised.

[ElNono]

Of course it's more expensive. The price tag will get even more expensive that this once the geezers scare congress out of raiding medicare to help fund this thing. It's a shitty plan that's 100% absolutely guaranteed to cost way more and deliver far less than what was originally promised.

You just described 99% of government programs, regardless of who was in charge at the time.

[EVAY]

You just described 99% of government programs, regardless of who was in charge at the time.

:toast

[EVAY]

one thing that won't be let go is the health care debate. It's going to cost the Dems majorities in both houses, because of reports like this.

Dems may or may not lose control of one or both houses of Congress. If they do lose control, it won't likely be health care that does it, but the economy.

Question is, assuming that the Republicans DO regain control of one or both houses...what are they gonna do about health care?

They (Reps.) have all said that if they regain control they want to '"repeal and replace"...none of them are suggesting NOT having Health Care Reform in any manner.

So, it SEEMS as though all they are gonna do is mess around at the edges.

[EVAY]

Don't get me wrong, I honestly believe that this Health care Bill is seriously flawed...

but it exists, and people want SOMETHING done.

[2centsworth]

Dems may or may not lose control of one or both houses of Congress. If they do lose control, it won't likely be health care that does it, but the economy.

Question is, assuming that the Republicans DO regain control of one or both houses...what are they gonna do about health care?

They (Reps.) have all said that if they regain control they want to '"repeal and replace"...none of them are suggesting NOT having Health Care Reform in any manner.

So, it SEEMS as though all they are gonna do is mess around at the edges.

Congress needs to cut severely cut Entitlements. That aint gonna happen, so both parties will lead us down the path of destruction. Dems will get us there faster. End result will be the same no matter who is in power. I guess you get what you can while you can get it.

[EVAY]

Congress needs to cut severely cut Entitlements. That aint gonna happen, so both parties will lead us down the path of destruction. Dems will get us there faster. End result will be the same no matter who is in power. I guess you get what you can while you can get it.

Agreed that entitlements need to be cut.

Agreed that neither party is going to cut entitlements.

So, is the result that whichever party is in the majority at any given time is the one that is blamed for the deficits?....cuz that's what it sure sounds like.

[Yonivore]

Color me shocked! Who would have ever guessed this monstrosity would have exceeded projected costs?

[2centsworth]

Agreed that entitlements need to be cut.

Agreed that neither party is going to cut entitlements.

So, is the result that whichever party is in the majority at any given time is the one that is blamed for the deficits?....cuz that's what it sure sounds like.

Blaming a the other party or the party in power is what power hungry politicians do to brainwash people.

We the voters are to blame. We vote for entitlements.

[Yonivore]

Blaming a the other party or the party in power is what power hungry politicians do to brainwash people.

We the voters are to blame. We vote for entitlements.
Not all of us.

Many of us scream at you that do, though. And, most of you that do, do so because you're on the receiving end of one or more entitlements -- for which I pay.

[Nbadan]

I don't even think the House will flip, but I'd be willing to bet every cent I had that the Senate isn't going to flip.

In any event, Health Care has nothing to do with it and the Economy has everything to do with it.

I think the house may flip, but the Senate won't...its not like it matters with all the DINO's in both houses anyway...

[Nbadan]

Congress needs to cut severely cut Entitlements

I agree, lets cut the corporate entitlements and let true free-market economics reign..

[Nbadan]

Color me shocked! Who would have ever guessed this monstrosity would have exceeded projected costs?

It was the CBO's own projections, so if you are 'shocked' you should be 'shocked' at the CBO...nothing has change in the health-care law to change costs..

[2centsworth]

I agree, lets cut the corporate entitlements and let true free-market economics reign..

the welfare state is free-market LMAO. Those evil corporations like USAA providing all them jobs and benefits. EVIL!!!! More Welfare is what we need.

[2centsworth]

Not all of us.

Many of us scream at you that do, though. And, most of you that do, do so because you're on the receiving end of one or more entitlements -- for which I pay.

I don't believe you. Next time a Republican advocates for drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security will be the first time. Entitlements don't mean just what the colored people get. Especially since the biggest welfare babies on the block are White Old People.

[boutons_deux]

"a Republican advocates for drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security will be the first time."

The Repugs' completely unfunded "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003" greatly increased "entitlements".

The Repugs' Act also gave $50B to the corps so they could complete with the same services from Medicare.

The Repugs' Act also forbid the govt negotiating drug prices with BigPharma, protecting their exorbitant profits with taxpayer $$.

Wasn't 2003 a Presidential election year? hmm, what a coincidence.

The Repugs' completely unfunded 2003 Iraq war-for-oil was an entitlement to the MIC, corporate welfare that keeps on giving, as well as making the President a "war president".

And dubya still needed all those $Ts increases in entitlements to scrape out a win in Nov 2003.

The Repugs only scream about deficits for those taxpayer $ and debts that aren't flowing to the corps and capitalists.

[Wild Cobra]

So what are Republicans going to do when they get back into office?
Fuck this country up, but at a far slower rate than democrats.