Senate health bill: $829 B, deficit-cutting

Top Republican congressman admits that maybe, just maybe, the GOP could've done something about health care the last eight years.

[Barney] FRANK - (D): You had control of the Congress. Why didn’t the Republican Congress act on it?

[Paul] RYAN - (R): I will have a moment of bipartisan of agreement. We should have fixed this under our watch and I’m frustrated we didn’t.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/gop-rep-admits-fail-concedes-republicans-should-have-fixed-health-care/

Since when does CNN "fact check" SNL skits???? What next "South Park"????

Finally a worthwhile CNN headline: “NEW DEVELOPMENTS… PRES. OBAMA HAS DONE ‘NOTHING, NADA’:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/07/is-cnn-the-new-snl/#more-13842

As hard as it is to believe these days, not all Republicans are crazy.

There are a number of prominent Republicans coming to the fore to endorse healthcare reform, unfortunately, none of them happen to be in Congress. Maybe it's their message to their folks on the Hill that, while there may be short term gain with keeping their crazy base riled up for 2010, ending up on the wrong side of history on this debate could have really damaging long term consequences.

Bill, Frist, Tommy Thompson, Michael Bloomberg, Mark McClellan, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and as of today, Arlold Schwarzenegger, have endorsed health care reform.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020284.php

Deficit-cutting? Excuse me while the guffaws of riotous laughter wash over me. I realize the Beltway crowd has a low opinion of the intelligence level of those of us here in flyover country, but please, try not to be so in-your-face when you insult us.

Bill, Frist, Tommy Thompson, Michael Bloomberg, Mark McClellan, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and as of today, Arlold Schwarzenegger, have endorsed health care reform.
Posted by: Ken | October 7, 2009 6:07 PM

Health care reform, but not all of the Dems public option multi-trillion dollar nonsense. BIG difference!!!!!

What the article fails to mention is that the CBO is only assessing the overall cost to the federal government. It does not assess the overall cost of the bill. This is significant because the Baucus bill involves a lot of cost shifting to the States. It may help ease federal deficits, but only by making States pay for a lot of it. This is an expense that many of the States simply cannot afford.

Here is a much better plan

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

I wonder how the seniors will take the $123 billion in Medicare cuts.

They are expecting $215 billion in taxes on the luxury health care plans (wonder on the unions will take to that). Wonder if they figured that people will change their behavior and therefore the loss of revenue.

Also, did the CBO analysis match up an equal number of years of tax revenues with that of costs. Previous "balanced budget" plans have not.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arfvqKVCaFKk

Are there pluses as compared to the dems original plan - sure. It sounds like "vouchers" would be used to buy health insurance from those big bad insurance companies.

Deficit-cutting? Excuse me while the guffaws of riotous laughter wash over me. I realize the Beltway crowd has a low opinion of the intelligence level of those of us here in flyover country, but please, try not to be so in-your-face when you insult us.

Posted by: Thoreau | October 7, 2009 6:31 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.

Actually you're just reinforcing your image of the dumber than a brick GOPer, "Thoreau".

As much as you right wing mouth breathers want to deny it, starting two wars (one based on lies) and giving tax cuts to the rich is not how you go about stimulating the economy and cutting the deficit.
.
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg

Lack of health care is the number one reason for bankruptcies in America. 95% of us are just one major illness away from being broke and put out on the street with nothing.

When has the budget office estimates ever been correct? Do you really belive that the Medicare budget will be cut by 400 billion? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.

There is NO "senate health care bill."

None. Nada. As Professor William Jacobson notes:

"The CBO scored the concepts described by the Baucus Committee. There is no legislative text. None. Baucus and his Democratic colleagues refused to reduce their concepts to actual legislation prior to a vote. Here is the CBO's disclaimer:

CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.

The Baucus Concepts are disasterous, but that's for another post. For this post, let me get across a simple concept: THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL."

Surprised this "Inconvenient Truth" isn't mentioned in the above article?

Don't be. This is the DNC Swamp, after all.

I hope that Reid and Pelosi include limits on lawsuits in the bill that they produce behind closed doors.

This would bring several Republicans over to vote for apporval of the legislation.

CBO and a Firewall That Will Never Hold [James C. Capretta]

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzFhODdmZWNjNDRiNWM1YjIyNWExYzUyZGVjM2I0ZjU=

Contrary to what the article says, there is neither a senate bill nor an official CBO "cost estimate"

As Politico.com has reported: “While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a “score” or “cost estimate,” today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in “conceptual,” or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a “preliminary analysis.” For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.”

What will the Obama media do next to push ObamaCare?

Accuracy is lacking in this article. As previously noted, there is NO bill that is being debated. It is only an outline and the CBO's report is an estimate, not a detailed analysis. Notably, the article does NOT mention the myriad
of new taxes that the proposal envisions, in addition to draconian cuts in Medicare provisions which, frankly, have seniors scared to death. You know, we don't ask much, just accurate, non-biased reporting. Is that too much?

"The CBO scored the concepts described by the Baucus Committee. There is no legislative text. None."

This is a minor technicality in the minds of Obama's cheerleaders. Let's see how well the scoring holds up when they go to the trouble to write an actual bill.

Posted by: Danforth | October 8, 2009 2:47 PM

Translation: There is no bill, but let me make a bunch of wild accusations about the scary provisions of the non-existant bill that will kill grandma!

I just hope this bill helps us all, we all need it.

Compromise doesn't mean compromising the essence of policy, and all know it !!

1. As regards a Baucus scheme, the source of funding coming from a middle class is utterly against the commitment of Democratic party while it leaves 25 million Americans without health insurance . And the bill would require people to buy insurance they can hardly afford.

In response to the scheme, the letter from 154 House Democrats to Speaker Nancy Pelosi urges her “to reject proposals to enact an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans that could be potentially passed on to middle-class families.”

“This is not an obscure detail of health care reform,” said Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, who drafted the letter. “Taxing health benefits was explicitly debated in the campaign by presidential candidates and people running for Congress.”

Furthermore, looking closely at the new CBO report, it won't be until "2014 or 2015" that folks start seeing a serious reduction in the number of uninsured.

2. No cost-competitive advantage of the insurer-friendly scheme does not clear the grave concern about the unsustainable growth in cost of overall health care program in the long run. Baucus scheme Doesn't Bend Cost Curve Enough, Experts Say.

And the scheme proposes a "fake" alternative, nonprofit insurance cooperatives -- and it places so many "restrictions" on these cooperatives that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, they "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country."

Beyond, the bill would lock many workers into health plans selected by their employers, without allowing them to shop for better, cheaper plans, an alternative that could help drive down costs for everyone.

Senator Rockefeller is also upset that the scheme would even turn nearly a half-trillion dollars over to insurance companies, whose profits he says are “out of sight.”


3. Even with some benefit for primary practitioners, the baseless scheme does not come with fundamental payment reform, or a pay for value reimbursement formula. It means that the insurer-friendly scheme is not cleaning up the concerns over quality, regional imbalance issues and $9trillion of deficit over the next ten years.

((Here is some of CBO analysis : While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout)).

4. For Medicare & Medicaid system to survive from the most wasteful structure on earth, enough savings via fundamental changes need to be ensured, in return, the savings thereof suffice to meet the goal of well-planned public option.

((Even with far less visits to docs, which average a half or a third of them in any other free states, Americans pay roughly twice as much per person right now)).

5. For the record, prior to nation-wide deployment of reform, The State Of "Yes We Can", Minnesota influenced by Mayo clinic spends "20 percent" less per patient than the national average and 31 percent less than in the highest cost state. It highlights that no substantial tax raise is needed at least for sure.

((The $583 billion of revenue package, and the astronomical savings of public option aside, "20%" of $923.5bn (the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost per year, as of July) represents around $184.7bn per year and 1.847trillion over the next decade, and this patient-centered value alone could be sufficient to meet the goal of public option)).

6. In principle, the long-awaited and most hopeful health care plan is to meet these criterias : Affordability, Quality, and A Check function against runaway premiums thereof.

Clearly enough, due largely to its lower overhead cost, purchasing power and fundamental payment reform, the well-planned public option would be doing more than the baseless scheme by THE INDUSTRY in these aforementioned aspects.

Now is the moment to open the page of contemporary energy and financial upgrades glossed over in 8 years.

Thank You !