Congressional Budget Office Thrashes Republican Health-Care Plan

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Congressional Budget Office Thrashes Republican Health-Care Plan
by Ezra Klein

Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning: The only thing worse than having no health-care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by CBO and making the House Democrats look good in comparison.

Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.

This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It's one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It's another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren't even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn't perfect, but in comparison, it's looking astonishingly good.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,421
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chad could you or Ezra explain to us simple folks exactly how spending 1.2 trillion dollars is going to save 36 billion--

I see lots of speculative #'s thrown around--
-but to me it sounds like the saved 600,000 jobs rhetoric-- when fact is we been lost over 4 million since stimulus passed..

And one other question--with medicare and medicaid already being trillions in the red--do you personally think adding more to the rolls is the answer- can you name one gov program that has not ran at a deficit-whats makes this diff?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,421
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
Hmm Is Ezra having tough time coming up with logical explaination Chad?

How about this one on his 35 million insured under Dem plan.

Would you give him same question I gave you that is still unanswered--who are they?????

Not people in poverty--their covered by medicaid.

Not people 400% above poverty level--they have Schips.

So can we dummies come to logical conclusions they must be combination of illegals and people who don't want coverage???
Next question is how do you find out out how many are illegals when the Dems do everything in their power to keep us from it.

1st sanctuary cities --now this

Senate blocks census US-citizenship question

<CITE class=vcard>By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer </CITE>? <ABBR class=timedate title=2009-11-05T09:52:48-0800>Thu Nov 5, 12:52 pm ET</ABBR>
<!-- end .byline -->WASHINGTON ? Senate Democrats have blocked a GOP attempt to require next year's census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen.


:0corn

Almost forgot --Media forgot to report on "a few" vistors to the whitehouse yesterday--so thought I'd enlighten those that missed it-


mbprot.jpg


signs.jpg


Protest signs at the Capitol
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Chad could you or Ezra explain to us simple folks exactly how spending 1.2 trillion dollars is going to save 36 billion--

I see lots of speculative #'s thrown around--
-but to me it sounds like the saved 600,000 jobs rhetoric-- when fact is we been lost over 4 million since stimulus passed..

And one other question--with medicare and medicaid already being trillions in the red--do you personally think adding more to the rolls is the answer- can you name one gov program that has not ran at a deficit-whats makes this diff?

Not sure how or why Ezra or I should be expected to come up with the answer you seek, Wayne - the numbers are from the Congressional Budget Office -
an office that Republicans use for certain purposes when attacking the dems plan, right? So, I guess the numbers are only worthwhile when the "right" people are using them? Or when the numbers fit into your own personal arguments? These numbers aren't mine, nor Ezra's. So, how can I defend them, and why should I be responsible for that? Makes no sense, but I know why you'd ask.

I can appreciate your position on the running in the red. I'd submit there are millions of individuals and businesses in this country that are doing the same thing right now, with no hope of any change in that. In fact, it can only get worse for most. At least with the new plan, it will be a shared ideology, with shared resources and negotiating power, and more control on costs and uncontrolled companies who have nobody to answer to but their shareholders and CEOs. I can certainly see how costs can be expected to come down - even dramatically - overall. With no action, or the limited proposals of the Republicans, there is no real change to the process or the plan, except for their pet project of attacking lawyers. Which is nothing new.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,421
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
Ok for the 3rd time--

Does anyone you know or any article you read have a clue about--still waitinf for answer on very simple questions

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How about this one on his 35 million insured under Dem plan.

Would you give him same question I gave you that is still unanswered--who are they?????

Not people in poverty--their covered by medicaid.

Not people 400% above poverty level--they have Schips.

or --

explain to us simple folks exactly how spending 1.2 trillion dollars is going to save 36 billion--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I mean seriously--they are the premise of health care reform--you'd think someone has a clue.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
It seems to be addressed in this article from AARP. I'm posting this and will look at it more later, no time now. I know some of what you are demanding to know is addressed in here. A lot of other things in here, that might be worth footnoting, and having access to for discussion purposes:
--------------------------

Health Care Reform and You
It?s down to three key bills and here?s how they would affect you and yours
By: Jim Toedtman | Source: AARP Bulletin Today | Updated November 3, 2009

Congress is closer than it has ever been to the most ambitious health care reforms since Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965. And few groups have a bigger stake in this overhaul than Americans age 50 and older.

For men and women 50 to 64?those not yet eligible for Medicare?the health care challenges are daunting. They face the prospect of lost jobs, reduced health benefits and the ?sandwich generation? challenge of helping finance health care for both their parents and their older children. The stakes for older Americans insured through Medicare also are significant. Nearly $400 billion of the projected cost of the reforms is to come from savings in Medicare and Medicaid.

Three key bills are in play now.

Two reform bills produced by the Senate Finance Committee and the the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will compete for passage in the Senate, with the final debate starting in early November.

The House of Representatives made its proposal public on Oct. 29, and will consider the measure beginning Nov. 1. Senate and House conferees will have to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills ? if approved -- and then present the final compromise version for a final vote later this year.

The stakes for American businesses, workers, citizens and retirees are huge. Virtually everyone will be touched by the reforms in these proposals. Here?s how:

? Insurance for individuals
? If you?re insured by your employer, or you own a business
? If you buy your own insurance
? If you own a small business
? If you don?t have insurance
? If you?re covered by Medicare
? If you?re insured by Medicaid
? Financing the plan
? How reform would work: three examples


Insurance for individuals

In all three bills insurance companies could not deny coverage for preexisting conditions or cancel coverage because of illness.

* House bill:

Everyone would be required to have health insurance. Those without coverage would pay a penalty of up to 2.5 percent of their modified adjusted salary but no more than the national average premium for employer-provided insurance, now $4,824 or $13,375 for a family. Families of four making less than $88,200 a year would receive a subsidy to help pay premiums. A family of four earning less than $29,326 would be eligible for Medicaid. Poor families? premiums would be subsidized depending on income.

* Senate HELP bill:

This proposal has insurance requirements and subsidies similar to those in the House bill, but the penalty is capped at $750 per year. A family of four earning less than $33,075 would be eligible for Medicaid. Poor families? premiums would be subsidized depending on income.

* Senate Finance bill:

This measure has individual mandates and subsidies similar to the other bills. Penalties for those without coverage are capped at $950 per person and $3,800 per family. A family of four earning $29,326 would be eligible for Medicaid, adding approximately 11 million to Medicaid?s roles. A temporary high-risk pool is created to insure those with preexisting conditions before the program would take full effect in 2013.

Back to Top


If you?re insured by your employer, or you own a business

Some 160 million people?53 percent of the population?have health coverage through their employers. They would not lose coverage if they get sick or lose their jobs. But if they drop their coverage, they would face a penalty.

* House bill:

If a company has an overall payroll of more than $250,000, it must cover 65 percent of an employee?s family premiums or pay a fine of up to 8 percent of its payroll.

* Senate HELP bill:

If an employer has 25 or more full-time employees, the firm must offer insurance to, or pay a fee of $750 for, each uncovered full-time employee.

* Senate Finance bill:

An employer is not required to provide coverage for employees. But companies with more than 50 full-time employees would have to pay subsidies of up to $400 for each uncovered worker. The employer would pay a 35 percent excise tax for those who have ?gold-plated? coverage that costs more than $8,000 annually or $21,000 per family.

Back to Top


If you buy your own insurance

About 15 million people?5 percent of the population?buy their own insurance policy. If you do, you could not lose it even if you get sick.

* House bill:

You would have the option of purchasing insurance at a health insurance exchange, where choices include plans from private insurance and one from the government. Those who don?t purchase coverage would have to pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Premiums for low-income families would be subsidized.

* Senate HELP bill:

Those who drop their insurance must pay a penalty of $750 per person.

* Senate Finance bill:

Families with income under $66,000 who fail to purchase insurance would face a penalty of $1,500; the penalty would rise to $3,800 for families with income over $66,000.

Back to Top


If you own a small business

About 62 percent of all companies with fewer than 199 workers offer health benefits.

* House bill:

Smaller companies would get a tax credit if they provide employee health coverage, or employ fewer than 25 people with an average wage of less than $40,000.

* Senate HELP bill:

A firm gets a tax credit if it pays 60 percent of an employee?s health expenses or employs fewer than 50 people with an average wage of less than $50,000.

* Senate Finance bill:

A company would get a tax credit if it employs fewer than 25 workers with an average annual wage less than $40,000 and provides health insurance.

Back to Top


If you don?t have insurance

About 46 million Americans?15 percent of the population?lack health insurance. The number of uninsured people ages 50 to 64 has grown 36 percent since 2000, to 7.1 million. Men and women in this group face higher premiums because they are older and usually have some health issues.

* House bill:

Everyone would be required to be insured. Those who don?t purchase coverage must pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income. People could purchase insurance through a health insurance exchange, where choices include private companies and a government option. Poor families? premiums would be subsidized depending on income. This measure would reduce the number of uninsured legal residents from 17 percent to about 4 percent. Insurance firms must provide coverage to all eligible people regardless of any preexisting conditions. Premiums for those over 60 could only be twice as high as those under 60.

* Senate HELP bill:

Insurance premiums could not exceed 12.5 percent of an individual?s income. People could purchase insurance through a health insurance exchange, where choices include private companies and a government option. Those who don?t purchase coverage must pay a penalty of between $1,500 and $3,800. The bill would reduce the number of uninsured legal residents to 3 percent.

* Senate Finance bill:

People could purchase insurance through a temporary insurance pool to provide insurance until the national system of exchanges and collectives can be established. Eventually, people can purchase insurance through a state-based health insurance exchange, where choices include private companies and a government-supported collective. Those who don?t purchase coverage must pay a penalty of up to $1,500, or up to $3,800 for a family. The bill would reduce the number of uninsured legal residents to about 6 percent.

Back to Top


If you?re covered by Medicare

Some 35 million people?more than 11 percent of the population?are over age 65 and covered by Medicare.

* House bill:

The HHS Secretary would be authorized to negotiate drug prices. Costs of brand-name prescription drugs in the drug plan?s coverage gap?the doughnut hole?would be cut in half, saving beneficiaries an average of $1,700 a year, and the gap closes completely by 2023. The life of the Medicare trust fund is extended by five years. The bill aims to eliminate $170 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage programs, which make the cost of those plans 14 percent higher than traditional Medicare. It would provide $15 billion in payments to skilled nursing homes and rehabilitation centers; and provide Medicare coverage for doctors giving end-of-life counseling. House Democrats would address a scheduled 21 percent cut in reimbursements for doctors participating in the Medicare program in a separate bill.

* Senate HELP bill:

Costs of prescription drugs in the drug plan?s coverage gap?the doughnut hole?would be cut in half, saving beneficiaries an average of $1,700, and the gap gradually closed by 2015. The life of the Medicare trust fund is extended by five years. The bill aims to eliminate the overpayments, or subsidies, to Medicare Advantage programs, which make those plans cost 14 percent more per person than traditional Medicare. It cuts $15 billion in payments to skilled nursing homes and rehabilitation centers, and provides Medicare coverage for doctors giving end-of-life counseling. A scheduled 21 percent cut in reimbursements for doctors participating in the Medicare program would be permanently scrapped.

* Senate Finance bill:

Charges in the brand-name prescription drug coverage gap?the doughnut hole ?are cut in half starting in 2013, for the same $1,700 savings a year. The bill would extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by four years. It also would eliminate the overpayment, or subsidies, to Medicare Advantage programs, cut $15 billion in payments to skilled nursing homes and rehabilitation centers, and provide Medicare coverage for doctors giving end-of-life counseling. A scheduled 21 percent cut in reimbursements for doctors participating in the Medicare program would be halted for one year. Medicare would now cover annual checkups.

Back to Top


If you?re insured by Medicaid

Forty-four million people?14 percent of the population?are covered by Medicaid. New plans would expand Medicaid by an estimated 11 million people.

* House bill:

Medicaid expands. Families of four with income under $33,000 would be eligible. Families of four earning $88,000 would pay no more than 12 percent of their income for health insurance. Government subsidies would pay the rest.

* Senate HELP bill:

Medicaid expands. Families of four with income under $33,075 would be eligible.

* Senate Finance bill:

Medicaid expands. Families of four with income under $29,326 would be eligible.

Back to Top


Financing the plan

* House bill:

Total cost: $894 billion over 10 years. Individuals with income over $500,000 and families with incomes over $1 million would pay a 5.4 percent surtax.

* Senate HELP bill:

Total cost: $645 billion over 10 years. Committee has no jurisdiction for setting fees and taxes.

* Senate Finance bill:

Total cost: $829 billion over 10 years. Costs would be partially funded by $507 billion in cuts from the expected costs of government health programs including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, $349 billion would come from new taxes and fees on health care insurers, manufacturers of health care devices and clinical laboratories.

Back to Top


How reform would work: three examples

* Lydia, 52, was recently diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. She switched to part-time work recently because of her diagnosis. She is too young to qualify for Medicare, but makes too much to qualify for Medicaid. But she can no longer afford coverage because of high medical copayments and premiums that have doubled since 2000.

With the health care overhaul, Lydia can?t be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. She can purchase her coverage through the new health insurance exchange, and her premiums can?t vary because of her illness. They would cost $4,913 under the House plan, and $6,081 under the plan before the Senate Finance Committee. Because her income is low, she qualifies for premium assistance and would pay no more than 5 percent (the House bill) of her income or $1,000 (under the Senate Finance Committee bill). Her total annual medical costs would be $1,933.

* Ingrid, 58, has just been diagnosed with breast cancer and faces the prospect of extensive tests and treatment, including chemotherapy. Her salary is $40,000. She will keep working so that she does not lose her health insurance.

With the health care overhaul, Ingrid cannot lose coverage because of her illness. If she opts to enroll in a new plan through the health insurance exchange, she gets assistance if her premiums exceed $4,800. Then she pays no more than 12 percent of her income. At her income level, her out-of-pocket spending is capped at $4,800. Still, the premiums plus her share of out-of-pocket expenses total about $10,000.

* Jack, 67, is on Medicare. He spends $4,500 on prescription drugs, including medication for high cholesterol and high blood pressure. He has a medigap policy, which supplements basic Medicare coverage, and is enrolled in the prescription drug program. He paid the first $295 of his drug bills, 25 percent of the costs, then he hit the $2,700 threshold. He was then in the doughnut hole and paid all of his drug costs. Had his drug spending reached $6,154, he would have left the doughnut hole, and Medicare then would have picked up 95 percent of the cost. With the health care overhaul Jack?s medigap coverage is unchanged, and his Part B premium remains the same. He gets a free annual checkup. He pays the first $295 of his drug bills and then 25 percent of his drug costs to $2,700. Once in the doughnut hole, prices of brand-name drugs are cut by half, an average savings of $1,700 per enrollee. If his spending exceeds $6,154, Medicare picks up 95 percent of the cost.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,421
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
1st Again your using a biased org AARP

Just a few recent contributions from their pres
Incoming AARP CEO A. Barry Rand contributed $8,900 to President Obama's campaign committees, federal records show--In addition to the $8,900 he gave to Obama, Rand contributed $4,500 to a leadership PAC maintained by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), the National Leadership PAC, between 2004 and 2008. Rand also gave $500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in 2007, $1,000 to the unsuccessful Senate campaign of then-Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) in 2006 and $1,000 to President Clinton's reelection campaign in 1995.


-now that we got that out of the way--lets take a look at their opinions.

Now as far as answering any qiestion I posed they are doing same dance you-gumby-pelosi and the rest are doing.

Their answer to who are these 45 milliom without insurance.

About 46 million Americans?15 percent of the population?lack health insurance. The number of uninsured people ages 50 to 64 has grown 36 percent since 2000, to 7.1 million. Men and women in this group face higher premiums because they are older and usually have some health issues.

WTF does that tell anyone.

Now Help this dummy out on the other question--where do they explain how spending a trillion saves billions. Don't see their explaination of taking Dr payments out of bill and putting in diff bill to reduce billions off budget--they fail to explain how Admin requested CBO to compile these #'s using payments in immediately but payments out years down the road. Would you like me to elaborate on either?

How is this plan going to be cost efficient when every other gov program in history--hasn't been?


Now lets look at a few things trhey do tell us.

1st out of box--
In all three bills insurance companies could not deny coverage for preexisting conditions or cancel coverage because of illness.

Any reason they failed to mention 6 month waiting period?

Can sum up the rest of what I have been harping about--EXPANDING WELFARE and CUTTING MEDICARE in one statement of theirs.

"Forty-four million people?14 percent of the population?are covered by Medicaid. New plans would expand Medicaid by an estimated 11 million people."

"Costs would be partially funded by $507 billion in cuts from the expected costs of government health programs including Medicare and Medicaid."


I can show you prosed cuts in Medicare--but challenge anyone to provide one cut in Medicade (welfare) The fools just got finished saying they are going to expand it by 11 million people.

Bottom line they are expanding DA Base by 11 mill more on the entitlement roles.

--and another thing why does AARP omit to tell you about the current hoopla on illegals being covered-abortion? or what about this--

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

<TABLE sizset="15" sizcache="4"><TBODY sizset="15" sizcache="4"><TR sizset="15" sizcache="4"><TD id=ctl00_ContentCell sizset="15" sizcache="4">PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats? Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009​

<! -------------- Links --------------------><TABLE style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify" class=middlecopy border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right sizset="1" sizcache="2"><TBODY sizset="1" sizcache="2"><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><! -------------- Links End -------------------->[FONT='arial','sans-serif']Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain ?acceptable health insurance coverage? and who choose not to pay the bill?s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: ?This is the ultimate example of the Democrats? command-and-control style of governing ? buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.?[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']?[FONT='arial','sans-serif']H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.?[/font] [page 1]​

- - - - - - - - - - [/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']?[FONT='arial','sans-serif']If the government determines that the taxpayer?s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply??[/font] [page 2]​

- - - - - - - - - -
[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']?[FONT='arial','sans-serif']Criminal penalties[/font][/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']? Section 7203 ? misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']? Section 7201 ? felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years[/font][FONT='arial','sans-serif'].? [page 3][/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']?The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi?s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,? said Camp.[/font]
[FONT='arial','sans-serif']According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker?s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.[/font]​



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​
--Appear they left out a lot of impoertant details besides the 2 questions I had that again were unanswered.

--What say you?
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top