Newest Health Care Bill ~ This one is 1900 pages

[Polk]

Price rose to $1.2 trillion.

The 10-year, $1.2 trillion bill would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans with a new requirement that almost everyone get insured, and give subsidies to help lower-income people afford plans. Businesses would be required to cover their employees, and insurance companies would no longer be able to turn people away because of their health status.

NPR
FOX

The price didn't increase. The 850 billion figure was counting with offsets. The 1.2 trillion is figure assumes the offsets are zero (which isn't accurate).

 

[Meister]

Price rose to $1.2 trillion.

The 10-year, $1.2 trillion bill would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans with a new requirement that almost everyone get insured, and give subsidies to help lower-income people afford plans. Businesses would be required to cover their employees, and insurance companies would no longer be able to turn people away because of their health status.

NPR
FOX

The price didn't increase. The 850 billion figure was counting with offsets. The 1.2 trillion is figure assumes the offsets are zero (which isn't accurate).

polk, start showing your sources, because all your doing is projecting right now, and that makes you look awfully foolish....or just down right stupid.

SOURCES, polk, SOURCES

 

[toomuchtime_]

Price rose to $1.2 trillion.

The 10-year, $1.2 trillion bill would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans with a new requirement that almost everyone get insured, and give subsidies to help lower-income people afford plans. Businesses would be required to cover their employees, and insurance companies would no longer be able to turn people away because of their health status.

NPR
FOX

The price didn't increase. The 850 billion figure was counting with offsets. The 1.2 trillion is figure assumes the offsets are zero (which isn't accurate).

According to AP sources, the price did increase.

The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.

While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of expanding coverage in the legislation at roughly $1 trillion, Democrats added billions more on higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more.

Many of the additions are designed to improve benefits or ease access to coverage in government programs. The officials who provided overall cost estimates did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them.

RealClearPolitics - Politics - Nov 03, 2009 - AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion

The problem is that Pelosi hasn't been able to scramble together the 218 votes necessary to pass any bill, so she keeps adding items to buy votes and the costs keeps climbing.

So the Dems are now claiming the cost of the House bill is $1.2 trillion over ten years, but we all know that is a low ball figure because the House has already passed a stand alone bill to rescind Medicare cuts to doctors costing $247 billion that is unpaid for, meaning all budget deficit, and by any reasonable standard that should be counted as a part of the cost of Obama's health insurance overhaul. So the cost over the first ten years will be close to $1.5 trillion, but since the exchanges won't be in operation until 2013, it may be more reasonable to spread that cost over the seven years when the exchanges are operational, meaning the first ten years of full operation will cost something over $2 trillion, but since the subsidies won't be fully available until 2015, it may be more reasonable to spread that cost over the five years when subsidies will be fully available, which would make the cost of the first ten years of full operation $3 trillion.

So in his speech before the joint session of Congress, Obama said there were 30 million Americans who needed health insurance, and if this bill were to give every one of them health insurance, which it won't, that would come to $3 trillion/ 30 million people = $100,000 per person over ten years to provide health insurance, or $10,000 per person per year. If we all didn't already know how smart Obama is, that might sound like a really stupid thing to do.

 

[Polk]

Price rose to $1.2 trillion.



NPR
FOX

The price didn't increase. The 850 billion figure was counting with offsets. The 1.2 trillion is figure assumes the offsets are zero (which isn't accurate).

polk, start showing your sources, because all your doing is projecting right now, and that makes you look awfully foolish....or just down right stupid.

SOURCES, polk, SOURCES

Citing that there are two ways to count the cost is projecting?

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.

CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion

 

[Polk]

So the Dems are now claiming the cost of the House bill is $1.2 trillion over ten years, but we all know that is a low ball figure because the House has already passed a stand alone bill to rescind Medicare cuts to doctors costing $247 billion that is unpaid for, meaning all budget deficit, and by any reasonable standard that should be counted as a part of the cost of Obama's health insurance overhaul. So the cost over the first ten years will be close to $1.5 trillion, but since the exchanges won't be in operation until 2013, it may be more reasonable to spread that cost over the seven years when the exchanges are operational, meaning the first ten years of full operation will cost something over $2 trillion, but since the subsidies won't be fully available until 2015, it may be more reasonable to spread that cost over the five years when subsidies will be fully available, which would make the cost of the first ten years of full operation $3 trillion.

Except that the exchanges don't really cost anything. What has a cost are the subsidies.

So in his speech before the joint session of Congress, Obama said there were 30 million Americans who needed health insurance, and if this bill were to give every one of them health insurance, which it won't, that would come to $3 trillion/ 30 million people = $100,000 per person over ten years to provide health insurance, or $10,000 per person per year. If we all didn't already know how smart Obama is, that might sound like a really stupid thing to do.

That assumes the money only goes to pay for the uninsured. It doesn't. It also provides support to lower-income Americans who currently have insurance.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So the Dems are now claiming the cost of the House bill is $1.2 trillion over ten years, but we all know that is a low ball figure because the House has already passed a stand alone bill to rescind Medicare cuts to doctors costing $247 billion that is unpaid for, meaning all budget deficit, and by any reasonable standard that should be counted as a part of the cost of Obama's health insurance overhaul. So the cost over the first ten years will be close to $1.5 trillion, but since the exchanges won't be in operation until 2013, it may be more reasonable to spread that cost over the seven years when the exchanges are operational, meaning the first ten years of full operation will cost something over $2 trillion, but since the subsidies won't be fully available until 2015, it may be more reasonable to spread that cost over the five years when subsidies will be fully available, which would make the cost of the first ten years of full operation $3 trillion.

Except that the exchanges don't really cost anything. What has a cost are the subsidies.

So in his speech before the joint session of Congress, Obama said there were 30 million Americans who needed health insurance, and if this bill were to give every one of them health insurance, which it won't, that would come to $3 trillion/ 30 million people = $100,000 per person over ten years to provide health insurance, or $10,000 per person per year. If we all didn't already know how smart Obama is, that might sound like a really stupid thing to do.

That assumes the money only goes to pay for the uninsured. It doesn't. It also provides support to lower-income Americans who currently have insurance.

Of course there will administrative costs directly associated with the establishment and operation of the exchanges; in addition, CBO estimates the IRS will spend between $5 billion and $10 billion over the first ten years to determine eligibility for subsidies. Since subsidies will only be available for people buying insurance through the exchange, that can properly be considered part of the expense of operating the exchange.

The point is that the taxes and spending cuts will begin in year one, but the exchange will not be operational until 2013 and the subsidies will not be available until 2015, so the government will be collecting money for three to five years before the major expenses begin so estimates of the costs of the first ten years grossly understate what the annual costs will be once the entire program is operational.

Subsidies will only be available to people who are not eligible for employer subsidized health insurance, meet the income requirements for eligibility and who buy individual policies through the exchange. The CBO estimates this group will number 21 million people by 2019, so by using 30 million people instead of 21 million people, I actually understated the per person average cost for health insurance.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And let;s not forget... over 100 new beaurocracies!!! YAY!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That a bill which adds a few regulations to insurance companies and subsidizes people buying insurance is considered a "government takeover" is a true testament to how unhinged the right has become.

Yeah, right. So, you've read the bill and are an expert on it?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anyway, All I've ever said is that turning 16% of the economy upside down to benefit 3% of the population doesn't add up.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And... it doesn take 1,900 pages and 100 goverment beaurocracies to add a "few new regulations and subsidies".

 

[Polk]

Of course there will administrative costs directly associated with the establishment and operation of the exchanges; in addition, CBO estimates the IRS will spend between $5 billion and $10 billion over the first ten years to determine eligibility for subsidies. Since subsidies will only be available for people buying insurance through the exchange, that can properly be considered part of the expense of operating the exchange.

Those costs really aren't significant though. Five billion over ten years? Each agency probably spends that much on Post-Its.

The point is that the taxes and spending cuts will begin in year one, but the exchange will not be operational until 2013 and the subsidies will not be available until 2015, so the government will be collecting money for three to five years before the major expenses begin so estimates of the costs of the first ten years grossly understate what the annual costs will be once the entire program is operational.

That argument would have some validity if not for the CBO showing the program is also deficit neutral over the second ten years as well.

Subsidies will only be available to people who are not eligible for employer subsidized health insurance, meet the income requirements for eligibility and who buy individual policies through the exchange. The CBO estimates this group will number 21 million people by 2019, so by using 30 million people instead of 21 million people, I actually understated the per person average cost for health insurance.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

That's playing fast and loose with the math, because now your subtracting out the people covered the Medicaid provisions in the bill.

 

[Polk]

That a bill which adds a few regulations to insurance companies and subsidizes people buying insurance is considered a "government takeover" is a true testament to how unhinged the right has become.

Yeah, right. So, you've read the bill and are an expert on it?

I've read enough of it to know that anyone who thinks it's nationalizing the health system is a moron or a liar.

 

[Polk]

And... it doesn take 1,900 pages and 100 goverment beaurocracies to add a "few new regulations and subsidies".

Yeah, it does. "1900 pages" is a misnomer to start with, because of the formatting of legislation.

 

[Meister]

Here are some details from Pelosi (H.R.3962) bill.

LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE (page 94)

Basically, section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.

COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION (page 110)

Section 222(e)(3) allows use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions.

HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (page 111)

Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee&#8221 to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase. The same bureaucrats and would also decide what coverage will be subsidized by taxpayers.

To be continued...

Hmmm, looks like it will end up being nationalized somewhere in time. Maybe not so idiotic, moronic, nor being a liar

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course there will administrative costs directly associated with the establishment and operation of the exchanges; in addition, CBO estimates the IRS will spend between $5 billion and $10 billion over the first ten years to determine eligibility for subsidies. Since subsidies will only be available for people buying insurance through the exchange, that can properly be considered part of the expense of operating the exchange.

Those costs really aren't significant though. Five billion over ten years? Each agency probably spends that much on Post-Its.

The point is that the taxes and spending cuts will begin in year one, but the exchange will not be operational until 2013 and the subsidies will not be available until 2015, so the government will be collecting money for three to five years before the major expenses begin so estimates of the costs of the first ten years grossly understate what the annual costs will be once the entire program is operational.

That argument would have some validity if not for the CBO showing the program is also deficit neutral over the second ten years as well.

Subsidies will only be available to people who are not eligible for employer subsidized health insurance, meet the income requirements for eligibility and who buy individual policies through the exchange. The CBO estimates this group will number 21 million people by 2019, so by using 30 million people instead of 21 million people, I actually understated the per person average cost for health insurance.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

That's playing fast and loose with the math, because now your subtracting out the people covered the Medicaid provisions in the bill.

That's $5 to $10 billion just for increased IRS expenses connected with the exchange. That may not seem like much money to some in the context of obamanomics, but it's $5 billion to $10 billion more than the $0 you had claimed the exchange would cost.

What the CBO said in respect to the deficit is:

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result
in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–
2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of
its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget
deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

and

CBO expects that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
will soon announce payment rates and changes in payment rules for
physicians’ services and other services that are set on a calendar year basis.
Those payment rates and rules may differ from the current-law assumptions
underlying CBO’s baseline projections. If so, CBO will update its estimates
of Medicare spending under current law to reflect those changes and will
revise these preliminary estimates of the impact of H.R. 3962 to reflect the
effects of the new rules on spending under current law and under the bill.

CBO is referring to the $247 billion projected cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians that the Dem leadership has already committed to reversing. That means the bill would not even be deficit neutral in the first ten years. $247 billion - $104 billion = $143 billion added to the deficit in the first ten years. Of course, this is based on the $894 billion the bill was first expected to cost, but if the AP story is correct, Pelosi has added another $300 billion to the cost, none of it paid for by taxes or spending cuts, meaning the increase to the deficit in the first ten years would be $443 billion.

Not so fast and loose. If instead of using Obama's estimate of 30 million people getting financial assistance to buy health insurance, we use the CBO's estimate of 21 million receiving subsidies and another 15 million more becoming eligible for Medicaid, instead of spending $100,000 over ten years per person for financial assistance to buy health insurance or for Medicaid, we'd be spending $83,000 over ten years, or $8,300 per year per person, still outrageously expensive, and for some one like you, who thinks $5 billion postit money, this difference should seem insignificant.

 

[Polk]

Here are some details from Pelosi (H.R.3962) bill.

LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE (page 94)

Basically, section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.


Section 222(e)(3) allows use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions.

HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (page 111)

Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase. The same bureaucrats and would also decide what coverage will be subsidized by taxpayers.

To be continued...

Hmmm, looks like it will end up being nationalized somewhere in time. Maybe not so idiotic, moronic, nor being a liar

All the provision you quoted do is state that minimum standards will be set and that policies must conform to those standards. How does that equate to nationalization?

 

[Polk]

Of course there will administrative costs directly associated with the establishment and operation of the exchanges; in addition, CBO estimates the IRS will spend between $5 billion and $10 billion over the first ten years to determine eligibility for subsidies. Since subsidies will only be available for people buying insurance through the exchange, that can properly be considered part of the expense of operating the exchange.

Those costs really aren't significant though. Five billion over ten years? Each agency probably spends that much on Post-Its.



That argument would have some validity if not for the CBO showing the program is also deficit neutral over the second ten years as well.




That's playing fast and loose with the math, because now your subtracting out the people covered the Medicaid provisions in the bill.

That's $5 to $10 billion just for increased IRS expenses connected with the exchange. That may not seem like much money to some in the context of obamanomics, but it's $5 billion to $10 billion more than the $0 you had claimed the exchange would cost.

What the CBO said in respect to the deficit is:

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result
in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–
2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of
its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget
deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

and

CBO expects that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
will soon announce payment rates and changes in payment rules for
physicians’ services and other services that are set on a calendar year basis.
Those payment rates and rules may differ from the current-law assumptions
underlying CBO’s baseline projections. If so, CBO will update its estimates
of Medicare spending under current law to reflect those changes and will
revise these preliminary estimates of the impact of H.R. 3962 to reflect the
effects of the new rules on spending under current law and under the bill.

CBO is referring to the $247 billion projected cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians that the Dem leadership has already committed to reversing. That means the bill would not even be deficit neutral in the first ten years. $247 billion - $104 billion = $143 billion added to the deficit in the first ten years. Of course, this is based on the $894 billion the bill was first expected to cost, but if the AP story is correct, Pelosi has added another $300 billion to the cost, none of it paid for by taxes or spending cuts, meaning the increase to the deficit in the first ten years would be $443 billion.

Not so fast and loose. If instead of using Obama's estimate of 30 million people getting financial assistance to buy health insurance, we use the CBO's estimate of 21 million receiving subsidies and another 15 million more becoming eligible for Medicaid, instead of spending $100,000 over ten years per person for financial assistance to buy health insurance or for Medicaid, we'd be spending $83,000 over ten years, or $8,300 per year per person, still outrageously expensive, and for some one like you, who thinks $5 billion postit money, this difference should seem insignificant.

The Republicans are equally committed to reversing the payment cuts to physicians, which is why they've voted to do so every year before the current one. They just want it passed one year at a time to keep up the fiction that the amendment doesn't cost anything.

The AP story doesn't say anything was added to the cost. The difference is over how to count the revenue provisions directly triggered by the bill (if you assume they aren't collected, the cost is 1.2 trillion, if they are, the cost is 900 billion; and there is no logical reason to assume they wouldn't be collected).

 

[toomuchtime_]

Those costs really aren't significant though. Five billion over ten years? Each agency probably spends that much on Post-Its.



That argument would have some validity if not for the CBO showing the program is also deficit neutral over the second ten years as well.




That's playing fast and loose with the math, because now your subtracting out the people covered the Medicaid provisions in the bill.

That's $5 to $10 billion just for increased IRS expenses connected with the exchange. That may not seem like much money to some in the context of obamanomics, but it's $5 billion to $10 billion more than the $0 you had claimed the exchange would cost.

What the CBO said in respect to the deficit is:



and

CBO expects that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
will soon announce payment rates and changes in payment rules for
physicians’ services and other services that are set on a calendar year basis.
Those payment rates and rules may differ from the current-law assumptions
underlying CBO’s baseline projections. If so, CBO will update its estimates
of Medicare spending under current law to reflect those changes and will
revise these preliminary estimates of the impact of H.R. 3962 to reflect the
effects of the new rules on spending under current law and under the bill.

CBO is referring to the $247 billion projected cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians that the Dem leadership has already committed to reversing. That means the bill would not even be deficit neutral in the first ten years. $247 billion - $104 billion = $143 billion added to the deficit in the first ten years. Of course, this is based on the $894 billion the bill was first expected to cost, but if the AP story is correct, Pelosi has added another $300 billion to the cost, none of it paid for by taxes or spending cuts, meaning the increase to the deficit in the first ten years would be $443 billion.

Not so fast and loose. If instead of using Obama's estimate of 30 million people getting financial assistance to buy health insurance, we use the CBO's estimate of 21 million receiving subsidies and another 15 million more becoming eligible for Medicaid, instead of spending $100,000 over ten years per person for financial assistance to buy health insurance or for Medicaid, we'd be spending $83,000 over ten years, or $8,300 per year per person, still outrageously expensive, and for some one like you, who thinks $5 billion postit money, this difference should seem insignificant.

The Republicans are equally committed to reversing the payment cuts to physicians, which is why they've voted to do so every year before the current one. They just want it passed one year at a time to keep up the fiction that the amendment doesn't cost anything.

The AP story doesn't say anything was added to the cost. The difference is over how to count the revenue provisions directly triggered by the bill (if you assume they aren't collected, the cost is 1.2 trillion, if they are, the cost is 900 billion; and there is no logical reason to assume they wouldn't be collected).

While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of expanding coverage in the legislation at roughly $1 trillion, Democrats added billions more on higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more.

Many of the additions are designed to improve benefits or ease access to coverage in government programs. The officials who provided overall cost estimates did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them.

RealClearPolitics - Politics - Nov 03, 2009 - AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion

That's how it got to $1.2 trillion. According to other stories I read this afternoon, Pelosi hasn't been able to find 218 votes to pass the bill, so she has agreed to add things to the bill to try to make it more palatable to some reluctant House Dems. The problem is that none of these new costs are paid for by taxes or spending cuts, so it doesn't sound likely this bill will be acceptable to moderate Dems unless Pelosi is able to find about $300 in new revenues to cover these costs. I've read a lot of stories that reference this $1.2 trillion cost, but I haven't seen any that explain this apparent increase as the result of a change of assumptions as you claim, but if you have a link to such a story, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All the provision you quoted do is state that minimum standards will be set and that policies must conform to those standards. How does that equate to nationalization?

why does the government have to tell me what the minimum coverage I choose should be.

I happen to be very happy with my HSA but now I will most likely have to buy a much more expensive policy that does not have a tax free savings account attached.

HMMM do you think this is about the government wanting to get its slimy paws on more tax revenue by denying millions of people the option to use an HSA?

 

[Claudette]

What a crock. A 1,900 page bill that they will have 72 hours to read. Hell, they don't read anything anyway they just pass it and we pay for it.

Seems to me that if Pelosi and her left wing looney friends want a public option they should all pool their money and open clinics and soup kitchens to take care of all those that kinda sorta forgot to get a job and kiinda sorta forgot to show one iota of responsiblity. I just wonder how long their free clincs would last without us dimwitted taxpayers footing the bills. Also, just where in the Constitution does it say that the taxpayers are responsible for providing healthcare for anyone???

I wonder whats hidden in this peice of crap?? I shudder to think. Honestly the clowns in DC need to get brain transplants. My Border Collie could run things better than they do and he's way smarter to boot.