
They're here! They're here!
A Democratic source provides TPM with the CBO's final top-line numbers on the health care reform bill--the cost-estimate of the Senate health care bill as amended by a soon-to-be-released reconciliation bill. The findings, as expected, keep the bill in line with the Senate bill's stand alone score:
The bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years, and potentially by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years (though CBO always warns that projections into the second decade are extremely unpredictable).
According to the source, CBO finds that the bill reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year, extending Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years.
And, in a small, but significant improvement over the Senate bill, the combined package will expand health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, as opposed to the Senate bill's 31 million.
The one difference Republicans will point to? The bill's about $100 billion more expensive than its predecessor. The price tag is fully covered, but will cost $940 billion over a decade. That's likely a reflection of changes to the bill, such as enhanced subsidies and closing the Medicare Part D donut hole. But it does exceed President Obama's arbitrary price of "around $900 billion", which he issued back in September, and which Congress treated as a hard ceiling.
Now House Dems will have to get off the fence. No more hiding behind the lack of a CBO-score as a rationale for their indecisiveness. Dems are caucusing right now, and will be apprised of the score and the changes to the Senate bill.
tonigo
March 18, 2010 9:38 AM
Provides coverage to 30 million Americans currently uninsured AND cuts the deficit. Naturally the Republicans will continue to piss all over it.
It saddens me that more moderate Republicans like Snowe, Collins and Brown will continue toe the RNC line rather than reach out across the isle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr S
March 18, 2010 9:43 AM in reply to tonigo
I guess they know that all they need to do is make one bipartisan move, and all of a sudden they'll get a GOP-endorsed teabagger running against them in a primary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonigo
March 18, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to Mr S
Yeah, but for those 3 Senators, I can't imagine a teabagger running all that well against them in the primaries given the states they represent.
I can see why guys like Inohofe, Cornyn etc are to the right of Attila the Hun as their states are deep red and lousy with teabaggers. But Snowe and Collins have both shown they can be reasonable Republicans and Brown needs to realize that as well if he has any desire to represent Massachusetts for more than 1 term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
March 18, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to tonigo
Brown has bucked the Republican trend some. But while states like Maine are pretty liberal as a whole, there are still some very conservative elements (the state's voters rejected gay marriage last year, for example). And much like some people on here are clamoring for more liberal Democrats to primary out incumbents even in states where a liberal Democrat would have no chance of winning, the Tea Party faction seems to be willing to risk losing seats to Democrats in the name of ideological purity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 19, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to jdb316
Yeah, if Snowe, Collins, or Brown were to vote for the health care bill, the only way they'd avoid getting knocked out in the next Republican primary would be to run as a Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Avvocato
March 18, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to tonigo
Make that part of one term!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
egbegb
March 18, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to tonigo
$500 Million from increasing taxes on the wealthy. When in history did the wealthy not figure out how to avoid taxes? Why would anyone expect the $500M to be real? There is no way, those earning over $250,000 won't figure out how to minimize or eliminate the additional tax burdern. CBO was told that $500M would be coming from increased taxes. They didn't argue with that. I do.
If Americans don't like the bill now, just wait until Obama extracts $500M from the Medicare program. There simply isn't $500M of waste in Medicare. The result will be fewer services and less coverage. Death Panels are closer than you think.
CBO estimates based on what Nancy tells them to estimate. They don't estimate based on likely outcomes. It should also be noted that CBO estimates health costs to go up with this plan, so this plan aggravates the current problems.
Overall, this is the poorest excuse for legislation I've ever seen. Not one of the D's who defends it seems to understand it, including O on yesterday's Fox News.
If this bill is passed and it stands, it will destroy health care in America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
March 18, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to egbegb
Be Afraid...Very Afraid.....oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 18, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to egbegb
So what's the point of ever considering raising taxes on the wealthy? I mean, if it can't actually be done, we might as well not talk about it, right? At the same time, maybe we can stop talking about cutting their taxes, too, since we can have no effect on what they pay? If they're already not paying taxes, what's the point of cutting them?
When one follows this point to its logical conclusions, it's ridiculous and defeatist. If you're concerned about this aspect, a more sound way to look at it would be to favor scrutinizing the tax code, looking for ways to make the rate they pay closer to what they should be paying based on the tax laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
March 18, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to egbegb
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Avvocato
March 18, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to egbegb
Death panels already exist, sir. They are called "for profit" health insurance corporations!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 18, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Avvocato
Touche.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 18, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to egbegb
Death panels, huh? Your real concern is Health care in America, huh? When exactly did you become so concerned? Just after Reagan, in between bushes & right before Obama is my guess. I'll also assume that you won't give a damn about any of this or anyone else the second the GOP has the ability to reverse any of the good that is coming from it. Say, in about the election cycle of 2024.
BTW, if the CBO score had come back with numbers more to your liking, would your BS argument be the same?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
March 18, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to egbegb
you don't know much about waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare if you don't think there's $500 million to cut.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
March 18, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to tonigo
It doesn't sadden me, it disgusts me.
Snowe voted for the Senate Finance Committee bill. She has never given a plausible explanation for why she voted to filibuster the Senate bill, much less vote against it on final passage, and why she will oppose the final bill.
She's either a complete flake, a total diva who won't do anything for anyone unless they kiss her ass with enough gusto, and/or a spineless wimp who won't do anything to piss off her party's leadership when it counts.
And Brown has never given a plausible explanation why he supports the Massachusetts health care reform law but opposes this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 18, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to Moose49
I'm actually disgusted that this bill is considered a great victory by many here.
If this is all our government is capable of, we are truly screwed. They wrote a bill and completely disregarded the will of the people. The Public Option was always popular, very much so in "blue dog" states.
We are screwed.
And the only way for me to show my disgust is at the voting polls.
I've voted Dem for 25 years.
No mas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
March 18, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to DA in LA
Not having a public option sucks, but not having health insurance for 30 million people, having tens of millions of people forced into medical bankruptcy, and having premiums skyrocket by 40 percent a year sucks even worse.
My view is it will be a hell of a lot easier to add a public option or improve the bill in other ways over the next few years than it would be to start over from scratch and have to endure another decade or two with this God-awful train wreck of a "system" we have now where 45,000 people a year die because they don't have health insurance. Keep in mind that Social Security and Medicare have been improved since they were first enacted, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 18, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to Moose49
Please don't compare this to Medicare or Social Security. It's not even close. The comparison does a disservice to SS and Medicare. We are cementing a privatized industry for good. SO not the same thing.
And I'm not talking about starting over. I'm talking about how this was handled by the Dems from the beginning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
March 18, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to DA in LA
OK -- fair enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Breck
March 19, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to Moose49
I thought it would make sense to look at the information available concerning whether people who don’t have insurance die more frequently than those who have insurance. Mr. Grayson relies upon a report by Harvard researchers (who are coincidentally in favor of Obamacare) to arrive at his 45,000 figure. To do this, the Harvard researchers went to government health surveys and compared death rates. But, there are at least three flaws in the Harvard study.
First, the data needs to be “sifted” to, in the minds of the researchers, make sure that a “valid” comparison can be made.
And so the scientists have to get creative with the data, comparing insured people who smoke with uninsured people who smoke; insured people who drink with uninsured people who drink.
They try to even out all of the risk factors, so the only difference in life spans can be blamed on health insurance, or the lack of it.
The more researchers have to tinker with data, the more their research becomes an art form.
Second, the surveys used give us only a picture of a brief moment in time. As follow ups to the surveys are rare, someone who was uninsured at the time of the survey may well obtain insurance later, but that same person who dies 10 years later with insurance will still be counted as the death of an “uninsured”. Obviously, the converse is also true.
And third,
The Harvard researchers looked at about 9,000 health surveys, in which about only 350 of the respondents had died. That’s a small sample from which to extrapolate 45,000 dead people a year, so it comes with a whopping margin of error.
But, there is another study out there that Mr. Grayson ignored.
Another study by Dr. Richard Kronick, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and former senior adviser to President Clinton, crunched the numbers from 640,000 health surveys.
He came up with a very small increased risk of death for the uninsured, with a very small margin of error.
As they say, never let the facts stand in the way of a darn good opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to tonigo
"Provides coverage to 30 million Americans"
Hey tonigo and the rest of you Obama butt boys and girls:
this POS legislation does not "provide" a GD thing to those in need, unless they can afford it. The only thing it "provides" is a cash cow of subsidies to those responsible for this crisis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twoviragos
March 18, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to Cornelius
Are you this unhinged after you've taken your medication?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to twoviragos
Is that your response? Can you answer my statement, does this POS legislation "provide" anything? An intelligent response would be appreciated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
March 18, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to Cornelius
So, you want an intelligent response to "Butt boys and girls?"
Really?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to DA in LA
Ok, I apologize. Now can you give me an intelligent response?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 18, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to Cornelius
I'll field this one: subsidies. It's true that the bill forces people to get insurance but it also provides help paying for it on a progressive schedule. If you can demonstrate how the insurance will be unaffordable even with the big help from subsidies, I'll concede your point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
March 18, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to worthy9
True. Government will subsidize premiums for those who cannot afford coverage but insurance companies will still be able to charge what they want for coverage and be able to charge those with pre-existing conditions at least 3 times more for coverage. Most of this isn't even going to kick in until 2014 at the earliest so people are still going to die by 45,000 per year and the window of time gives the vultures in the insurance industry time to develop strategies to get around the parts of the law they don't like while maximizing profits from the parts they do like. So basically, this bill is a $70 billion give away to the insurance companies through force and government subsidies and only "covers" up to 32 million while a total of at least 50 million are currently without care.
This isn't even a band-aid on a gushing wound. It's a second knife to make the wound gush even more. Lastly, if the bill is so great, Republicans aside for a moment, why are they having to do so much arm-twisting and backroom dealing to get it passed? There is no true reform until either these companies are reigned in at the least or the profit margins and bottom lines are removed from health care all together at best. The whole argument that "we can improve on it later" is so disingenuous. I mean, if the politicians can't even give us a decent bill to start with what makes anyone really think they will go back later and "fix"?? Senator Conrad has already said that we shouldn't expect the House "fixes" to sail through the Senate and the senate parliamentarian has just thrown the Health Insurance Rate Review Authority out of Reconciliation Bill. Remember, this crappy bill is the one that came from Max Baucus' finanance committe and the very one that Obama truly supported from the beginning where single payer was shut out completely and the public option was ditched at the earliest possible political convenience.
After all, I'm so thrilled that the credit card legislation the Dems and Obama passed to "protect" people from those abuses caused my interest rates to jump from 9% to 19% through no fault of my own that I can hardly wait to see what this bill will do to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 18, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to Forrest
Are you aware that the bill outlaws charging higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions? It also sets up a unified market for insurance in each state, forcing the companies to compete directly with each other; if one company wants to raise prices, they'll have to weigh that benefit against the loss of customers. Supply and demand keeps prices competitive elsewhere - why not here? Moreover, the companies will be required to spend at least 85% of their revenue on paying out claims which further constrains their ability to raise prices.
The reason they're having so much trouble is not because it's a horrible bill. There are some Democrats who believe the bill is too liberal and there are some Democrats who think the bill isn't liberal enough. We have everything from Democrats who are single-issue votes on abortion (Stupak) to socialists (Bernie Sanders) to members who have special reservations based on their state's situation (Mike Capuano). We're a big tent and it's bound to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 18, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to worthy9
Actually, I'll correct myself. It doesn't outlaw charging higher premiums for pre-existing conditions. I thought I had read that somewhere but now I can't find a word about it. Yet, my previous arguments still stand regarding price controls.
Also, if this is such a massive giveaway to insurance companies, why are they fighting it so hard? Why have they gone to the trouble of setting up PACs and websites and whatever else to fight this? Could it be that they realize this will cut into their profits? Is there any other rational reason to oppose it from a business perspective? When your opponent tells you to do something, that's usually a good reason to do the exact opposite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 9:40 AM
OK. That's the news, but here is CNN headlline.
And here is Fox headline.
Notice anything?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 18, 2010 9:47 AM in reply to Brownbagger
What are you trying to say, brown? MSM is not providing objective journalism, but instead slanting the story to fit with their corporate agenda? No way!
I noticed that too ; )
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to mophan
Well, I just report. You decide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
March 18, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Ah yes, but first you decide what to report ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to cwnidog
And here now is the non-biased poll Fox has up:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
March 18, 2010 9:48 AM in reply to Brownbagger
You mean Fox is spinning the facts to paint a purely negative image of the bill? I'm SHOCKED. SHOCKED!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 10:26 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
It's very hard to believe, I know, but that does seem to be what is happening. Of course, it could just be an isolated incident. Ya think?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
March 18, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to Brownbagger
I'm legitimately surprised that Fox hasn't put "Health Care Bill (D)" on their chyrons
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
March 18, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
The Bill reflects negatively on itself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 18, 2010 9:48 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
March 18, 2010 9:49 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Yep. The repuke propoganda machines are doing an awesome job as always. When are we going to tackle the media monopolies? Then maybe that will gut the propoganda machines. Gobbels would be proud.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
March 18, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to Brownbagger
So simple to see....huh
CNN is trying their best to steal some of FUX News brain dead viewers.
They have been going right, right along with their dwindling poles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
March 18, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to toddincabo
lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 18, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Yeah, to add one more, I'm subscribing to some of the NPR email updates, and a "breaking news" email this morning has a subject that goes:
To be fair, once you open the email, the sub headline is "Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the health care package will reduce the federal deficit by more than $100 billion over its first 10 years." with a link to the corresponding article at their website.
But still.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
March 18, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Am I wrong or is the Fox headline softer than the CNN headline?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to blkblt
Yes, but when you are second in the race to the bottom, you have to try harder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 18, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to Brownbagger
OK, so what are we saying? HCR "costs" $940 billion, but "cuts the deficit" by $130 billion, all in the first decade.
Does that mean that there is no "actual" cost, i.e., there is a negative cost, or that the "actual" cost is $810 billion?
If it's the former, why don't we press on that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 18, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to Brownbagger
This was my first thought as well, and thank you... you just proved it.
It will be spun as badly as possible for the Democrats.
When Obama was first elected, the Big TV Show was about the proverbial Hope and Change (remember the Inauguration?). Now, the Big TV Show is about Obama's a Loser.
Y'know, it's kind of like the other day, when Rielle Hunter's interview was published. She wants nothing, will not make trouble, loves her child, loves "Johnny", ... and the MSM just went absolutely. Freaking. Ballistic. How DARE!!! this woman upset our narrative as the dirty slut who helped a bastard Democrat politician wreck his home? They were loud, firm and unforgiving, almost as one.
"Health care reform", which the media used to tout as something America needed, has become controversial, and the President has become the loser who is trying, probably unsuccessfully, to survive. The story line is clear. And, for as much critique as I may have of him or the Dems, this entire Big TV Show is making me see red and I've about had it.
Look for Chris Matthews to play Tim Russert Memorial Gotcha with whomever are lucky enough to be his guests, tonight, and grill them mercilessly about "THE COST!!!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 18, 2010 9:44 AM
Idaho become the first state to "opt-out" of health-care reform. Virginia soon to follow. The Opt-Out public option would have been a political coup for Democrats. A missed opportunity.
With that said, the CBO score comes in over the $900 billion threshold, eh. What's a billion here and a billion there amongst friends? Passed the darn thing and lets move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 18, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to mophan
There is a difference between "opt[ing] out" and suing the Federal Government.
The latter is grandstanding. And BTW, simply put, ultimately you can't even do it. Long-settled Constitutional law that a state can't choose to "opt-out" of following Federal law.
Idahoans (and residents of any other states whose R's pull this shit) will ultimately fall under the same national health care policy. Menwhile, the new Confederates get to do their states' rights dance and impress the Stupids.
This is meaningless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
March 18, 2010 9:47 AM
Nice reference to The Jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cambridgeMR
March 18, 2010 9:55 AM
A $130B cut in the deficit is great. Unfortunately, that deficit reduction is tiny compared to the deficits incurred by Republican policies over the last decade.
Liberals need to fight back and tell the public that Republican fiscal policies are bankrupting our government. They cut taxes without cutting spending; they are against pay-as-you-go; they want to outsource government programs to wasteful private companies. On every count, Republicans are mortgaging our future.
And now we are going to have a health care bill that will rely on wasteful private companies to handle our health care insurance, using our tax dollars to fund the million dollar salaries of health care CEOs. There is a more efficient alternative -- Medicare -- that we could allow people to buy into, saving everyone untold billions of dollars. But because of Republican fiscal irresponsibility, health care is being outsourced to waste and fraud-ridden private insurers.
(I'm for this bill because it is the best thing that we will be able to get during this generation. But I'm still unhappy that our country is still being run according to the book of Reagan.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonigo
March 18, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to cambridgeMR
The US is a huge country. It takes awhile to turn the ship. It took the Republicans 30-40 years to shift the country away from the New Deal, and they never were successful in scuttling Social Security and Medicare (so far anyway). But they were successful in deregulating industry and cutting taxes for the wealthy on an incremental basis until, 30 years later, the gap between rich and poor is wider than it ever was and corporations can do pretty much whatever they want.
This bill is far from perfect, but it's a pretty good sized step in the right direction. The reason Republicans fear and loathe it so much is that it stops the ship from moving rightward and opens the door to some of the ideas you've raised. Incrementalism can be a beautiful thing sometimes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to tonigo
"Incrementalism can be a beautiful thing sometimes".
Yea, unless of course you're the one who's sick and you have to wait 3-4 years. This waiting period doesn't seem to bother the Obama is God crowd. Never heard an explanation. Waiting for things is what many of us endure throughout our lives but to be sick and told you have to wait 3-4 years is indefensible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to Cornelius
If you'd been around in the 60's you'd have been arguing against the Civil Rights bill because voting rights and fair housing provisions were stripped out. You'd have been arguing against Medicare because it included Republican provisions and was too limited. In short, you are an impediment to the progress you claim you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Yes I have been around since the '60's. And don't assume anything about me. Simply defend the 3-4 year wait. Please give me an explanation. That's all I'm asking for.
If you'd been around in the 60's you'd have been arguing against the Civil Rights bill because voting rights and fair housing provisions were stripped out. You'd have been arguing against Medicare because it included Republican provisions and was too limited. In short, you are an impediment to the progress you claim you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to Cornelius
Because given the realities of the politics of the moment, that's the best that can be accomplished right now. The choice isn't between this bill and a magic pony. It's between this bill and nothing.
The reality is that 30 million people will be have access to affordable coverage who weren't covered before. Don't try to play your word games with me. They'll have coverage and they won't without the bill. That's the choice. Which do you prefer?
The reality is that this bill eliminates most of the worst practices of insurance companies. Without it those practices will continue. That's the choice. Which do you prefer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 18, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"Political realities" are the compromising with the devil that always stands in the way of progressive change.
But your "3-4 year wait" isn't as dire as you think. I suggest that to see the actual timeline as to what kicks-in and when, you watch this handy little clip from the amazing Ms. Maddow who (as always) teaches it like Government 101:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35921715#35921715
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 10:04 AM
"(though CBO always warns that projections into the second decade are extremely unpredictable)"
LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
limpdo
March 18, 2010 10:08 AM
The sad part is, will anything ever come of it to actaulyl HELP the sheeple? I doubt it. If passed, it will be so watered down we will never see any benefit.
Lou
www.anon-vpn.net.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeaningLeft
March 18, 2010 10:16 AM
I need to request a little education. I think I knew the difference at one time, but I've been too busy with work and personal stuff lately to pay attention to or think about HCR. Can someone explain the difference in "The bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years," and "will cost $940 billion over a decade"? Where will the $940 billion come from? How will the deficit be reduced?
Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to LeaningLeft
It's about half and half cost savings plus additional taxes of various kinds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 18, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to LeaningLeft
The budget negative effects of the legislation, i.e. the new spending will be 940 billion. The bill also contains cuts and taxes that are approximately 130 billion more than that. (Over ten years) So while the 940 billion does fit one definition of the bill's cost, it's also really deceptive to talk about it costing 940 billion. A bill that is deficit neutral while very large has larger variance than a bill that is deficit neutral while very small so it's not like it's irrelevant though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeaningLeft
March 18, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
That makes sense. Thanks.
What's the split between cuts and tax increases? It looks like mans_best_friend is saying 50-50. Am I reading that right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
March 18, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to LeaningLeft
Try thinking of it this way:
If you just graduated from high school, you could go out and get a job now and start earning money. Or you could go to college which will cost you a lot of money but your income when you get a bachelor's degree will be much higher. It will be so much higher, in fact, that you will have earned enough extra income to make the college tuition worthwhile.
The health care bill spends money now, but the CBO is saying that the result of those expenditures will lead to massive savings (from things like fewer people using emergency rooms to get treatment and insurance premiums being forced lower than they otherwise would be). When you combine those savings with the increased revenue from various taxes, you end up with an extra $100 billion over ten years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeaningLeft
March 18, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to Xantar
I like that analogy. I was trying to come up with a mortgage refinance (up front closing costs vs. long term savings) example. But I like yours better. I may have to use that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
March 18, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to LeaningLeft
No the cost is 940 billion the decit taxes and other measures to cut the deficit is 1.03 trillion or some shit. It's a bill that I would vote for. All it needs is PO to make me excited about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill Samuel
March 18, 2010 10:35 AM
It saves money from the current basis. However, once the Senate bill is enacted, that becomes the new basis. The ability to use the reconciliation procedure to get the House amendment through the Senate is dependent upon it offering a savings over that basis. If I understand the news story correctly, it would increase costs over the unamended Senate bill and therefore throw a monkey wrench into the reconciliation strategy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mc mark
March 18, 2010 10:38 AM
Stupid question:
How accurate has CBO scoring been historically on bills?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
March 18, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to mc mark
40% of the time, it's accurate every time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
olychris
March 18, 2010 10:39 AM
Can someone help me out? If the house passes the bill doesn't the senate bill become law? If so, why in the world would they vote against the bill that fixes some of the shit the repubs have been crying about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
March 18, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to olychris
Politics of course. But this bill will pass then the recon bill will be sent to the Senate to be voted on. Probably won't get a PO because IF ANY AMENDMENT AT ALL is put into the senate bill it will have to be sent back to the house.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Capt Elaine
March 18, 2010 10:42 AM
It's a shell game... the people DO NOT want this, but they don't care what we want?
Wonder why they want this SO BAD, they are willing to bribe, cheat, steal, lie, pretend not to vote for it... to pass this... if it is SO GREAT why are they having to twist arms, and allow California water (gee thanks) to get DEMOCRATS to vote for it... the DEMOCRATS are NOT fighting the republicans, they are fighting each other... in case you hadn't noticed.
This bill is a JOB KILLING nightmare...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
March 18, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to Capt Elaine
100 bucks says you copied and pasted that, it didn't matter which article it was you would have said the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twoviragos
March 18, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to theone718
Come on, that's not fair. I bet she at least added the all cap words ;).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
March 18, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to twoviragos
I have to disagree those are the ones she made sure she got right the first time. You do have a bit of the point though she probably told herself she need to cap a few more words to sound reeaaaaalll angry ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 18, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to Capt Elaine
Please stop yelling in your post - save it for the teabagger rallies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 18, 2010 10:44 AM
FIXED NEWS IS A WASTE OF TIME.....PARTY OF KLANSMEN DO NOT GET IT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 18, 2010 10:44 AM
IDAHO'S AND VA-GINA'S DONT COUNT
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 18, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to dem4life
Remove you caps lock, plese.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 18, 2010 10:49 AM
Lord you people are gullible. Taxes start immediately, benefits don't. Medicare is stripped of $500 billion and double counted as savings.
Meanwhile Walgreens is refusing Medicaid prescriptions, and if you need a primary care doctor in Massachusetts, good luck. Emergency room visits are rising. It's also the most expensive healthcare insurance rates in the country.
You are being lied to in egregious ways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
March 18, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to shooter242
You are barking up the wrong tree. NObody on this site (but your fellow trolls) believes your egregious lies.
I work in Mass. and the insurance rates have actually flattened over the last couple of years even though cost control was NOT part of the healthcare law's scope, increased coverage was. On that measure it was a undeniable success(as much as I hate to give Romney credit for anything). Mass has the lowest rate of uninsured in the country, by a wide margin. Costs have not ballooned.
You did have one grain of truth in your little screed about the proposed national HCR.
Taxes WILL start immediatly. However those who's tax rates will increase are not you and me, but those in the highest percentiles of earnings (Those who can afford it).
So your problem may be that you're rich and your tax rate may increase, but I feel little sympathy for those who have done well enough to reach this tax bracket.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
March 18, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
Massachusetts has a significant percentage of lower income people who amass large amounts of medical debt and subsequently forgo needed care and have further ruined credit. This is the same situation we're going to see nationwide. Basically, we'll have the same problems, but everyone will be "insured." Massachusetts really isn't something to model a health care system on unless all you want is the ability to make hollow claims. Obama mocked passing a law that required us to buy for-profit insurance, now he feeds us just that.
People have got to get over this "cult of personality." No good will come of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
March 18, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to dick c
While I agree Mass's system needs further improvement, the rest of you statement is mudding the waters.
First, as w/ the propsed national HCR, there are subsidies for lower incomes. Yes, these people who are now covered certainly don't have a "Cadillac plan" but catastrofic costs are covered (after deductible).
This is huge for two reasons.
1. w/out their new Insurance, taxpayers and and current insurance carrying individuals payed for these costs in both tax revenue and increased premiums on their insurance. (the $10 asprin at the hospital is $10 because it covers the actual cost of the pill as well as the costs not recovered by those w/out insurance that hospitals are required to treat.
2. Now it will be Insurance Co.'s paying out these costs as now the people are covered (Yes after deductible/co-pays etc).
This has not ballooned costs in the bay state because now the Insurance co.'s are recieving many more customers and risk is spread out over the cumulative pool of insured peoples.
Yes Subsidies are expensive, but not more so that what the status quo is.
Your argument does not hold water.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
March 18, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to shooter242
I agree with you 100%. We're now seeing the Rate authority being stripped out of the bill, as most of the decent proposals have been. The "funding" in the bill will be proven to be inadequate, so if the economy doesn't improve the subsidies paid out to insurance companies for extremely overpriced junk plans will explode, all the while people with these junk plans will still go without care. This is nothing more than a means to bailout the wealthy people who reap HC dollars before that industry implodes. As I read somewhere else, this is can be most accurately called the Obama ProfitCare Bailout. Why people don't compare what works well and saves money in other countries with the foolishness being proposed here is beyond me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 18, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to dick c
You think Republicans will let ideas from outside the States EVER make it here? God forbid someone in let's say, most of the rest of the free world have a good idea. It wont make it here, its not "American" enough. /sarcasm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 18, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to Joekuh
As long as the GOP ideas prevail in the media and the corporations - no. Ironic because their belief that it has to be 'American' to be any good is costing us jobs and any edge we may once have had in technology and other innovations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
besetfree
March 18, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to shooter242
wrong on many counts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChrisB
March 18, 2010 11:20 AM
$940 billion IS "around" $900 billion. Obama only quoted one significant figure, so the implication is +/- $50 billion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 11:39 AM in reply to ChrisB
Does anyone really think these CBO projections are accurate enough to distinguish between $940B and $900B over 10 years? The error margin on those numbers is probably 3 or 4 times that difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 11:22 AM
And here now is the non-biased poll Fox has up:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
March 18, 2010 11:56 AM
At Huffington Post they are saying 150 billion over ten years. That's a big discrepancy. Anyone know?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
March 18, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to CVille Dem
Oh, never mind. I re-read it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
March 18, 2010 11:57 AM
The ReFoxlicans will not be satisfied until Obama is impeached. That is their ultimate goal. If they take back House and/or Senate that will be priority #1.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 18, 2010 12:05 PM
Real news outlets are reporting that Paul Ryan put out a statement saying the CBO has not yet finished scoring. The Jackassocrats are trying yet another deception.
It's easy for them bcause of their stupid audience.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to Barney
Where's the link, teenie weenie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 18, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to Barney
And it never occurred to you that he might be twisting the truth or simply outright lying? Democrats will lie but Republicans are paragons of honesty? C'mon, dude. They're all politicians; twisting the facts is what they do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to worthy9
...and still we wait for a link...tick tock...tick tock...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 18, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to worthy9
I think the fact that he is placing trust on the same Ryan who produced a "budget" he claimed would eliminate the deficit by the year 2050, but was thoroughly discredited by independent financial institutions, is enough reason for me to ignore anything Ryan might have to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Plantiful
March 18, 2010 12:22 PM
The most logical (like logic is even recognized in our government) solution would be to create universal medical coverage for all citizens and those that are paying taxes. The current, private health insurance companies, who are raping their members, would then remain as optional, supplemental insurers for those that can both afford such coverage and feel that universal is not sufficient for them. These companies will be able to freely choose their own policies, pick whomever they would like to cover, and charge what they like in a free market.
The universal coverage will be paid for by an income tax, which will be offset by whatever you are currently paying now, and/or by your employer's contribution. Everyone is covered, most-everyone pays, no forms and no denials. Doctors will practice medicine, and not litigation-mitigation (e.g. let's test you for everything and send you to three specialists..... just in case).
Over-testing and over-prescribing are driving up costs very rapidly. If a doctor's billings are beyond a certain, statistical value, their records can be looked at, reviewed, and adjustments made between a medical review board and the practice. Lawyers will need to be kept at bay, however, and this is a related but different issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
akfred
March 18, 2010 10:46 PM
This is rather funny. Tax the wealthy till there are no more. What is wrong with being wealthy? How many of you are employed by the poor? It is strange, I can remember when everyone wanted to work hard, get ahead, become wealthy and live the life they wanted to. Now many want to sit around, complain and get paid for it. If this health care bill is so great, why does congress and obama not want to fall under it themselves. Not to many of you ask that question. So have a little more kool-aid. This will surely mean, the government will end up running this program and there will be no savings or a reduction of the deficit. Once this bill passes, even if it is the Antichrist of bills it will never go away. It will become an albatross and we will pay for the rest of our great great great and so on grand children. The government has never run a program that it has not run into the ground.
If universal health care is so great, why did the head of the Canadian health care system come here to have heart surgery. ANSWER: His DOCTOR advised him too.
THAT LAST STATEMENT SHOULD BE THE ANSWER TO IT ALL...
I want health care reform but not a system run by the government. I want to see the final bill, this is something that affects the American people as a whole. It needs to stay in the light of the day and not get whisked off to be rewritten once the dust settles.
Ok just a little economics for all of the folks that think the wealthy and business should get taxed more. Businesses never pay taxes, I repeat business never pays taxes. The consumer pays them and buy consumer I mean you. Ever notice right after a nice tax hike prices go up and everyone complains, SURPRISE there's your new tax. Hey taxes only went up on business.
If there is universal health care why would any business pay for an independent health care policy. That will vanish and all that is left is the government program, notice how now it is a program because that is what it will become. So there is something to look forward to. How many of you are on welfare, don't worry you soon will be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 20, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to akfred
Obama and all members of Congress ALREADY have government health care. Why are you so opposed to the idea of giving all Americans the same health care that Congress gets?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Gordo
March 19, 2010 1:50 AM
No rational person would run their household finances on the model of this healthcare bill. "Hey, Honey, I'm buying that new car and the summer home we've always wanted. Its the right thing to do. We deserve it and we've worked hard. And we've wanted to do this for 10s and 10s of years so that means its a good idea now. Yes, I know we are always going in the hole every month as it is because our expenses already are greater than our income BUT I have a great money saving scheme to pay for it all. I will stop getting haircuts and we'll keep the kids home from summer camp. And you won't be able to take the plane to see your parents each summer. That's how we'll pay for it. By not paying for things we pay for now. (Heh, hed, no way will that happen but it sure sounds good.) Oh, and yes, we will still have greater monthly outlays than we have money to pay for it but guess what? Good news! That monthly debt will be LESS than before!!!!! Sure, we'll still be hemorrhaging money and our kids probably won't be able to go to college but hey, we'll be hemorrhaging LESS and by the way, we will be dead by the time they want to go to college so who gives a bleep? We'll have great fun with our new car and summer home in the meantime."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 19, 2010 9:32 PM in reply to El Gordo
No rational person would run a national budget the way they run a household budget either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
March 19, 2010 8:43 AM
I think if this shite sandwich passes and if these number are even close we can all be put in the "WE'RE F'D" category!
...To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.
But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.
How would we pay for all of this? According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion....
...And what would we get for all of this? The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 4:42 PM
This was my first thought as well, and thank you... you just proved it.
It will be spun as badly as possible for the Democrats.
When Obama was first elected, the Big TV Show was about the proverbial Hope and Change (remember the Inauguration?). Now, the Big TV Show is about Obama's a Loser.
Y'know, it's kind of like the other day, when Rielle Hunter's interview was published. She wants nothing, will not make trouble, loves her child, loves "Johnny", ... and the MSM just went absolutely. Freaking. Ballistic. How DARE!!! this woman upset our narrative as the dirty slut who helped a bastard Democrat politician wreck his home? They were loud, firm and unforgiving, almost as one.
"Health care reform", which the media used to tout as something America needed, has become controversial, and the President has become the loser who is trying, probably unsuccessfully, to survive. The story line is clear. And, for as much critique as I may have of him or the Dems, this entire Big TV Show is making me see red and I've about had it.
Look for Chris Matthews to play Tim Russert Memorial Gotcha with whomever are lucky enough to be his guests, tonight, and grill them mercilessly about "THE COST!!!"
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 22, 2010 12:02 PM
Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?