health care reform expensive?

[netrox]

This is the most rational viewpoint on health care reform! Kokonutguy is fond of using BIG numbers as a way to scare you to think we have no money for it but this article points out, it's not big at all - in fact, just a drop in a bucket compared to WHAT we pay two years ago!

"It's time for some real talk on health-care reform. By the standards of what Congress generally does in a year, this bill is very big. But by the standards of the health-care system, it's not that big at all. It goes two-thirds of the way on covering the uninsured. It makes a courageous, but insufficient, start on cost control. This is the beginning, not the end, of reform.

Let's begin by breaking down the numbers. The $900 billion price tag is repeated with the regularity of a rooster's crow. That's a shame, as the number is, somewhat impressively, misleading in both directions.

On the one hand, that $900 billion is stretched over 10 years. But people don't think in 10-year increments. They don't pay taxes once a decade. Put more simply, the bill will cost an average of $90 billion a year.

But that number is meaningless without context. Ninety billion is a lot more than you probably paid for, say, your house. But is it a lot of money in the context of national health-care spending? Not really. In 2008, we spent $2.3 trillion on health care. Ninety billion is about 4 percent of that. In other words, a drop in the bucket."

washingtonpost.com

 

[posts from hell]

This is the most rational viewpoint on health care reform! Kokonutguy is fond of using BIG numbers as a way to scare you to think we have no money for it but this article points out, it's not big at all - in fact, just a drop in a bucket compared to WHAT we pay two years ago!

"It's time for some real talk on health-care reform. By the standards of what Congress generally does in a year, this bill is very big. But by the standards of the health-care system, it's not that big at all. It goes two-thirds of the way on covering the uninsured. It makes a courageous, but insufficient, start on cost control. This is the beginning, not the end, of reform.

Let's begin by breaking down the numbers. The $900 billion price tag is repeated with the regularity of a rooster's crow. That's a shame, as the number is, somewhat impressively, misleading in both directions.

On the one hand, that $900 billion is stretched over 10 years. But people don't think in 10-year increments. They don't pay taxes once a decade. Put more simply, the bill will cost an average of $90 billion a year.

But that number is meaningless without context. Ninety billion is a lot more than you probably paid for, say, your house. But is it a lot of money in the context of national health-care spending? Not really. In 2008, we spent $2.3 trillion on health care. Ninety billion is about 4 percent of that. In other words, a drop in the bucket."

washingtonpost.com

where is the savings going to??? What was cut to make the change?

 

[Foxrac]

Health care reform is still expensive, IMO.

 

[Jiro]

Health care reform is still expensive, IMO.

omfg really?

 

[Foxrac]

omfg really?

Yup, especially if public options are included.

I'm just speaking on my opinion.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

omfg really?

Flip-flopping is even more expensive.

 

[TXgolfer]

For me I don't even have to consider the cost. I don't like the plan. Eight dollah is too much for this plan.

 

[netrox]

You don't like the plan? Why? You hate the idea of making sure all Americans are covered with health benefits? Why do you hate the poor?

 

[Foxrac]

You don't like the plan? Why? You hate the idea of making sure all Americans are covered with health benefits? Why do you hate the poor?

I support health care reform, exception of public options that need seriously considered to work or remove, I had noticed that many, many Americans are very upset with health care reform and I was like whoa and have think about myself.

It need have other idea but can't think about it right now, except for tax credits and regulation so TXgolfer may able to give a better answer.

 

[Jiro]

Yup, especially if public options are included.

I'm just speaking on my opinion.

I support health care reform, exception of public options that need seriously considered to work or remove, I had noticed that many, many Americans are very upset with health care reform and I was like whoa and have think about myself.

It need have other idea but can't think about it right now, except for tax credits and regulation so TXgolfer may able to give a better answer.

Your opinion is an epic fail. The public option was already removed months ago. So what is it specifically that you don't like about this health care reform?

 

[Foxrac]

Your opinion is an epic fail. The public option was already removed months ago. So what is it specifically that you don't like about this health care reform?

No, public options are still included in House's plan and it already passed before other plan is made in Senate, both are passed but different version and haven't merge yet.

House's plan has public option included.

Senate's plan don't include public options but rather to allow states to make decision about adopt the public option in individual states whenever they decide.

Your remark about label my opinion as epic fail is nothing since opinion don't make right or wrong.

 

[Foxrac]

I found about something is interesting, if Scott Brown win to take senate seat for Mass in this week so health care reform will going be fail before merge can be start and have vote again, unless bipartisan, both of democrat and republican would have re-work so together so it will be very hard.

I would find out about more on Tuesday, it will going be interesting for me to know.

Jiro, I did heard about public options may drop out when start merge with senate bill but for now, it hasn't drop out yet for house's plan and Google is your best pal to find out, it has tons of information, that what I heard after read news everyday.

 

[TXgolfer]

You don't like the plan? Why? You hate the idea of making sure all Americans are covered with health benefits? Why do you hate the poor?

In the big picture this plan does not help the poor. Mandatory Health insurance will cause many small businesses to close. Some by choice and some because they can't afford to be in business anymore. Larger businesses will consider the whether or not it is cheaper to pay overtime to existing employees rather than add more employees and paying for more insurance. This too means more unemployment. Doubt this? Well my golf foursome tomorrow includes me and 2 others that closed our businesses last year. Was it the economy? No. I closed down after super tuesday. The other 2 closed down shortly after. Why? It became apparent that Obama would be our next President and that taxes would go up for us. Also......the possibility of mandatory health insurance. Our businesses were all service industry with little inventory so it was pretty easy to leave. We all had enough money so what was the point. Between the 3 of us over 70 employees were let go. I doubt we were the only three to see it this way.

Ok that covers the "poor" part. Another problem with the plan is that it isn't fair. Is it fair to the other 49 states that Nebraska is exempted from additional medicare payments just because they needed Ben Nelson's vote??? No.
Is it fair to the other 49 states that Louisiana is getting a better deal because they needed Landreau's vote??? No. Is it fair to middle class non union workers with great health care plans that they will have to pay a 40% tax on there insurance plan from 2013 til 2018 while their union counterparts will not??? No.

This plan is horrible beause in the big picture it will only hurt the poor. Not only that but the plan was achieved by compromises made behind closed doors that are not fair and equal to all Americans.

On top of that......It just may be unconstitutional.

 

[TXgolfer]

I found about something is interesting, if Scott Brown win to take senate seat for Mass in this week so health care reform will going be fail before merge can be start and have vote again, unless bipartisan, both of democrat and republican would have re-work so together so it will be very hard.

I would find out about more on Tuesday, it will going be interesting for me to know.

Jiro, I did heard about public options may drop out when start merge with senate bill but for now, it hasn't drop out yet for house's plan and Google is your best pal to find out, it has tons of information, that what I heard after read news everyday.

If Brown is elected it will be interesting to see if Democrats attempt to delay seating him until after the Health Care vote

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Overtime is cheaper? They have been laying off the people who worked too many hours up here. :|

 

[Foxrac]

If Brown is elected it will be interesting to see if Democrats attempt to delay seating him until after the Health Care vote

Yup, it could be possible like happened to Minnesota.

I doubtfully it could pass with just 59 with one democrat seat is missing.

 

[Foxrac]

[Mod's Edit: removed the quoted post]

House plan does still include public options but no confirmation about dropping the public options when start merge with senate bill as it has been considered, I found link.

Senate passes health care bill 60-39 - Dec. 24, 2009

Major differences between the more liberal House bill and the more conservative Senate bill will now be the focus of the conference committee that will try to merge them.

One of the biggest divides is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 -- as well as families earning more than $1 million -- would face a 5.4% income tax surcharge.

The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. But instead of an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, it would impose a 40% tax on insurance companies providing what are called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it's one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. However, House Democrats oppose taxing such policies because it would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous health benefits.

Asked in an NPR interview Wednesday if he prefers the income tax surcharge or the tax on high-end plans, Obama predicted the final bill will probably end up with "a little bit of both."

"Cadillac plans ... don't make people healthier, but just take more money out of their pockets," he argued.

The Senate bill also would hike Medicare payroll taxes on families making over $250,000; the House bill does not.

Another key sticking point is the dispute over a public option. The House plan includes a public option; the more conservative Senate plan would instead create new non-profit private plans overseen by the federal government.

Given the reality of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, however, there hasn't been much serious discussion among House leaders about pushing hard to keep the public option.

The Senate "tried to see if they had support for it. There isn't. That's the reality," a top House Democratic leadership aide told CNN. "I think a lot of people are coming to terms with that and I don't know how productive it would be to bring it out again."

Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5% of an individual's income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2% of his or her income -- whichever is greater. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8% of their payroll.

The Senate bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

Abortion also has been a sticking point for both chambers. A late compromise with Catholic and other conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option. It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.

Senate provisions, made more conservative than initially drafted in order to satisfy Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, would allow states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.

Nelson said on CNN's "State of the Union" last Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version.

I support health care reform, not public options and it is still expensive to have health care reform, either include or exclude public options because medical related thing that cost alot, that what I learned and one of my biggest support is just want have same insurance benefits for everyone that has been offered to federal workers, also tax credit. Health care reform still need work and I had changed my mind about not support public options after realized an concerned about quality of health care that I had been treated under Medicaid and have hard time to believe if public options does have same quality as private insurance does.

It's my businesses to change my mind if I want when I find something is new or anything is concerned, I haven't make final answer that I make ensure to favor in health care reform because everything could change in later.

 

[Foxrac]

Also mandatory insurance coverage in health care reform is part of thing that I'm disagree with it.

Health care reform, exception of public options and mandatory insurance coverage is just fine but I believe that it will going be tough luck due special election on Tuesday.

 

[Jiro]

Democrats Said to Agree to Drop Public Option

Private insurers would be monitored by a federal agency, under the brokered compromise

(Bloomberg) — Senate Democrats tentatively agreed to abandon plans to set up a full government-run insurance program in a bid to remove one of the biggest obstacles to health legislation, a person familiar with negotiations said.

The lawmakers instead backed a proposal to establish a program modeled on the U.S. government employee-insurance system that would have private companies provide coverage under federal oversight to millions of uninsured Americans, the person said. They also want to expand eligibility for the federal Medicare program for the elderly.

The deal was negotiated by 10 Senate Democrats seeking an alternative to the government-run program. While most Democrats support the so-called public option, the idea has drawn fire from party members in the Senate and all Republicans. It needs backing by 60 senators to get into the final bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats reached "a broad agreement" on the issue, yet offered no details.

"We have confronted many hurdles, and tonight I believe we have overcome yet another one," Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said in a statement last night.

Reid is pushing the Senate to pass health-care legislation before the end of the month, paving the way for a House-Senate compromise early next year. The 10-year, $848 billion Senate bill is designed to cover 31 million uninsured Americans and curb medical expenses.

 

[Jiro]

Dems Make Deal to Drop Public Option

Majority Leader Harry Reid Says "Broad Agreement" Reached Between Liberals, Moderates on Government-Run Insurance

After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a full-blown government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Obama's top domestic priority.

In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage, with the possibility of greater government involvement if needed to ensure consumers of sufficient choices in coverage.

It’s official: Democrats drop opt-out public option

WASHINGTON – After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, the emerging agreement calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population.

At a hastily called evening news conference in the Capitol, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined to provide details of what he described as a "broad agreement" between liberals and moderates on an issue that has plagued Democrats' efforts to pass health care legislation from the outset.

With it, he added, the end is in sight for passage of the legislation that Congress has labored over for months.

The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

At its core, the legislation would expand health care to millions who lack it, ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and rein in the rise of health care spending nationally.

The developments followed a vote on the Senate floor earlier in the day in which abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping health care bill, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the issue didn't hamper the drive to enact legislation. The vote was 54-45.

Taken together, the day's developments underscored the complexity that confronts the administration and Reid as they seek the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican opposition and pass a bill by Christmas.

Despite their reluctance, some senators had talked openly and in detail earlier in the day about the progress of the negotiations.

The provision in the legislation to be dropped under the emerging agreement provides for a government-run insurance option to be available to consumers, with individual states permitted to drop out. Liberals have long sought such as arrangement, as a means of forcing competition on insurance companies.

One participant in the talks, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told reporters he didn't like the deal, but he added, "I'm going to support it to the hilt" in hopes of securing passage of the health care bill.

Another senator involved, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., issued a statement saying, "I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach. We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars." But he did not rule out voting for the measure.

In his comments to reporters, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option," the Medicare expansion or another as yet unknown element.

It was unclear, for example, what fallback steps would be included in case private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan envisioned to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management. One possibility was for the agency to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis, but no confirmation was available.

Under the tentative agreement, liberals lost their bid to expand Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, elderly and disabled. But they prevailed on the Medicare expansion, and the negotiators appeared ready to maintain a separate health care program for children until 2013, two years longer than the bill currently calls for, according to officials familiar with the details.

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.