Report: Early CBO Estimate Says Public Option Will Save Billions Over 10 Years
Jon Cohn over at The New Republic is reporting that, in early estimates, the Congressional Budget Office is finding that a robust public option, along the lines of the one recommended in the House health care bill, could save about $150 billion over 10 years--a notable chunk of the approximately $1 trillion Congress will need to finance an overhaul package.
Keep in mind, though, that the public option creates savings by driving down prices, and it can't do that nearly as effectively if it's prevented from setting below-market pay rates. But that's exactly what conservative Democrats are trying to do. At the same time, those Democrats are demanding that health care legislation do a better job of lowering health care costs. And that's just one of the contradictions inherent to the position of those attempting to scale back reform efforts.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Timely, to say the least. And good to bring up the contradictions.
July 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what's confusing about the Blue Dog letter OTH they say we have to get some more best practices in the legislation to cut costs but on the other they say we can't pay doctors at the 80% level of Medicare.
You want to make doctors happy fellas? Cut their medical malpractice insurance costs by introducing a public option for that too. It's just as much of a monopoly scam and whenever insurance companies investments inthe market don't pan out they elevate the bs scare tactics about frivolous lawsuits and raise doctor premiums.
July 10, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have an excellent suggestion there markg8. Now if there were some way to get that incorporated into the reform. That would really infuriate the insurance companies that are cheating the doctors.
July 10, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan write your congressman and senators. Send them that article I cited for Richard. Then call them. Then call their other offices.
July 11, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call the goof-offs and tell them to do the work of the American voter ---not the HMOs, Insurance Co, Big Pharma...1.800.828.0498
Outrageous that they continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths!
July 12, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's good. Make the government provide mandatory arbitration with some very limited appeals available to federal courts. When appeals are completed, make the results public so that everyone can evaluate the fairness of the results. (No names included unless it goes to litigation.)
That should assure fairness (public arbitration of the result but anonymous regarding plaintiff and defendant.) but also make it unlikely that the arbitrators could lean unfairly towards either the doctors or the patients. If the results of arbitration are unfair, then publicizing the names of both the physicians and the patients should be sufficient to keep unfair cases from going to litigation. Box scores on the arbitrators might be publicized, and every arbitration needs to undergo review so that no arbitrator has independent and unreviewed freedom to lean towards either claimants or health care providers.
July 11, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richard there never has been a wave of frivolous liability lawsuits, let alone medical malpractice suits, that have resulted in jackpot jury awards. There has been a three decade long disinformation PR campaign by the insurance lobby and GOP aided and abetted by the media.
The result is in many states individuals have had their right to sue for egregious medical mistakes or any other corporate disasters visited on them severely curtailed already.
There is no need to further restrict individual rights in favor of corporate ones.
Read this article. It'll really open your eyes:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mencimer.html
July 11, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely correct. It is complete disinformation by the insurance industry and the republican bozos. I have a priceless example.
About 15 or 20 years ago or so, California introduced a cap in med mal cases for emotional distress damages and all kinds of other bs to limit med mal cases. It was promoted by the insurance industry and the medical profession to reduce their insurance premiums. Funny thing is the year after the law was introduced, their premiums still went up, not down.
It's all a bunch of bullshit. What would save costs and reduce the "frivilous" litigation, what little there is, would be universal healthcare. Get rid of the insurance interests and give everyone medical care and what happens to the cases and pi lawyers? They go the way of the dinosaur. Simple.
July 11, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with most of what you say Michael I don't think simply putting a public plan in place will do away with medical malpractice lawsuits. What will do away with med mal suits is less medical malpractice and better record keeping. Adopting the VA's electronic record keeping system would immediately cut the 100,000 mistakes that kill people each year and adopting the Taiwanese smart card approach which has your medical history on it would do that and stifle fraud to boot.
July 11, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that idea of a public option for malpractice as a way to keep those insurance companies honest, too.
July 12, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to know how they come up with these figures. I understand they aren't considering the savings of local and state governments who would not be paying out for unpaid care. Are they "netting"out the cost. I cannot believe that a public option would not be cheaper just because you don't have as much emergency care which is more expensive and other unpaid care. Isn't one of the reasons care is expensive is because the insured are paying for everybody because a lot of the uninsured aren't paying?
July 10, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
NPR reported a study that concluded the annual premium for a family of four is about $1,000 higher to compensate for treatment of the uninsured. The additional premium for a single person is about $350.
July 11, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pathetic crap. Billions over 10 years is chump change. Real health care reform would save trillions over 10 years.
Is this the optimistic or pessimistic CBO estimate of whatever BS public option notion?
July 10, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CBO is like the overcautious geek at school that doesn't ask the girl out because he is scared she will turn him down. It doesn't take into accuont the savings from EVERYONE'S premiums being lowered and forced efficiencies it would place upon private insurance whatsoever. Me thinks that would add about 100 to 150 billion more in savings.
July 10, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, in ten years, the criminal insurance industry will be history because of the public option. The savings will be trillions and the health of the nation will be better. That's the game plan and another smart move by obama. The man is a genius. I hope they have room on Rushmore for this guy's face. He will go down as one of our best presidents ever.
July 11, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
They actually don't. I googled this a while back and it wouldn't be possible to put another face on there. We should have a new millenium version of it thougbh, for 4 Presidents 2 Dems.........and to be fair......two repubs.
July 11, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like wishful thinking whether you meant that much in 10 yrs or annually.
Got something to back it up?
July 11, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats en extra 100-150 bill in 10 years. I mean just look at the surrounding facts, a public option would be guranteed to have lower premiums because is not for profit so it doesn't need to run ads, pay huge salaries, and deal with all this extra papaerwork tyingh to deny coverage. It's lower cost and (relatively) high quality care is REAL competition which would force insurance companies to either shape up or get out of the business. They would have to lower their premiums and increase their coverage to compete which would help everyone in the long run.
July 12, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest hurdle to getting a health reform bill passed is Harry Reid. His inability to twist arms and threaten his Democratic colleagues is the problem. The Republicans bypassed Democrats when they had the majority and not a 'super' majority at that. They threatened Democrats with a 'nuclear option' if they filibustered! And Reid can't keep his in line. If he doesn't he should be replaced. JUST PASS THE GODDAM THING!!!
July 11, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes just pass the House bill in the Senate with 50 votes plus Biden.
Get the BEST DAMNED BILL you can with exactly enough votes to get it to Obama's desk. That is what will save us all money and save people's LIVES! Healthcare is a LIFE AND DEATH matter that is a moral imperative unlike anything short of declaring war. If you know your vote will cost many people their lives then you had better be damned sure that it is the most completely honest thing you have ever done. KIssing the ass and the wallet of some insurance or drug corporation before you vote should send you STRAIGHT TO HELL!
This means YOU BLUE DOG DEMS! Vote to save lives or go to hell!!!
July 12, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink