• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO ups health care cost projections

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Why does this not surprise me...

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.

Republicans pounced on the news, which they called another sign that the Obama administration makes promises it cannot deliver.

“The American people wanted one thing above all from health care reform: lower costs, which Washington Democrats promised, but they did not deliver,” said House Minority Leader John A Boehner (R-Ohio). “It was clearly irresponsible for Washington Democrats to force this legislation through Congress without being truthful about its full impact on the nation’s finances. Republicans are fighting to repeal this job-killing health care law and replace it with reforms focused first on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.”

But a Democratic leadership aide on Capitol Hill said the Congress will have to stay within the budget.

"Just like other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits,” the aide said. “Republicans fighting to repeal reform can say what they want, but the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs - period.”

The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.

CBO ups health care cost projections - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
 
I'll take "Things that should surprise no one but will be ignored by many" for $200, Alex.
 
This is precisely what the Democrats promised us wouldn't happen. I'm shocked.
 
This is really not too surprising. Although the health law sought to expand coverage, it did not address the "excess cost growth" problem inherent in the U.S. health care system. Until that problem is addressed, national health expenditures will likely remain on an unsustainable course. Addressing that problem will likely require a dramatic restructuring of the industry, major changes in industry practices (particularly with respect to technology procurement e.g., early adoption of technology), administrative savings, emphasis on measuring productivity, etc. Such measures are likely to be far more controversial than the recently enacted health legislation.

Ultimately, budget constraints (governmental and private sector) and an unwillingness of foreigners to continue to finance U.S. health expenditures (via channels of purchases of U.S. debt and the nation's current account deficit) will lead to a gradual disintegration of the current system, which remains largely unchanged even after the newly-enacted health law. Of course, gimmicks such as a single-payer approach won't be viable solutions, as the systemic problem concerns industry structure and practices, not the number of payers.
 
Also, for those who are interested, the actual CBO letter can be found at:

"http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf"

Note: One should copy and paste the above URL into one's address bar to access the document.
 
It seems to me that EVERY government program ends up costing far more than the government thought it would. It's as reliable as the sun coming up. So why doesn't the CBO just take their estimates and triple them? Then we'll all know the real number.
 
New+Picture+%2827%29.png


Enough said. And this is just one program.
 
New+Picture+%2827%29.png


Enough said. And this is just one program.

At it's like that for every program, albeit not to that level. Both parties accept the CBO numbers, but their track record is so bad I don't see why.
 
It's like what the CBO does with tax numbers. They never take ino account that tax changes will cause a response in the population. For them, it's like the Laffer Curve doesn't even exist.
 
yes, no surprise, we all knew

also, another bit of common knowledge: big companies are preparing to DUMP coverage plans for their hundreds of thousands of employees

Four companies mulled dropping health insurance plans - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

another promise by president putz exposed as phony---if you like your coverage you can keep it

at&t, for example, figures that its 2.4B of current health care costs can be cut to a bare 600M by dumping all the dans and debbies onto dumbo's doles

waxman of energy and commerce was conducting hearings to embarrass the megacorps for their greed

until the docs were delivered demonstrating the dread deliberation

waxman cancelled his inquisition

party on, progressives

live it, love it, it's yours
 
the original impetus for reforming health care in the first place, as conceived and laid out by over-his-head obama, was ECONOMIC

he need to REVERSE THE TRAJECTORY OF THE COST CURVE

somehow, as the awful year ensued, the meaning and message got morphed into EXPANDING COVERAGE to all us comprehensive universals

that is, he can't even stick to HIS OWN points

utterly incompetent

no wonder the party had to resort to a CRAM, just 24 hours off of a DEEM

no wonder polls all across the country are killing the coalition

it is fundamentally impossible to EXPAND already overstrained m&m by millions while simultaneously cutting their insufficient fundings by HALF A T

like gravity

another unavoidable reality everyone knew

these and others are the reasons why no one is enthusiastic FOR this pig

its "supporters" are universally defensive

we couldn't do nothing, republicans offered no alternates, republicans lie---their only apologies

be proud, progressives, of your accomplishments

we'll discuss them coast to coast in november
 
Maybe we should stop discrimination against for-profit hospitals.

"Of course it wouldn't make sense to restrict physician services without restricting hospitals. For-profits were the first to go, and where they were not outright prohibited, they faced a number of regulatory burdens that nonprofits escaped — such as income and property taxes. Nonprofits received generous government subsidies, tax-deductible contributions, and local planning agencies working in their favor to keep for-profit competitors from expanding. This state-sponsored discrimination against for-profit hospitals took its toll: at the time of Flexner, almost 60 percent of all US hospitals were for-profit institutions. By 1968, only 11 percent were for-profit institutions with about an 8-percent share of hospital admissions."

And maybe other special advantages aren't a good idea:

By 1939 these loose-cost containment plans began to be marketed under the Blue Shield name. That same year, Blue Cross was endorsed by the American Hospital Association. Already in existence for ten years, Blue Cross had begun as a hospital insurance plan for Dallas school teachers that allowed them to pay for up to three weeks of hospital care with low monthly payments.

"After this, organized mainstream medicine waged an intense war on non-Blue plans. Goodman (1980) contends that some physicians lost hospital privileges and even their licenses for accepting non-Blue plans.[24] The Blues also gained government-supplied advantages not available to non-Blue plans. In many states, they paid no or low premium taxes and sometimes no real-estate taxes. They also weren't required to maintain minimum benefit/premium ratios and could have no or low required reserves. With government advantages, the Blues steadily came to dominate the industry. By 1950, Blue Cross held 49 percent of the hospital insurance market, while Blue Shield held 52 percent of the market for standard medical insurance.[25] They merged in 1982 and today cover one of every three Americans.[26]

Blues-created "insurance" was anything but true insurance.

*Hospitals were paid on a cost-plus basis. Insurers paid not a sum of prices charged to patients for services but artificial "costs" that bore no necessary relationship to the prices of services performed.

*Insurance of routine procedures. This converted insurance to prepaid consumption that encouraged overuse of services.

*Insurance premiums based on "community rating." The word "community" meant that every person in a specific geographic area regardless of age, habits, occupation, race, or sex was charged the same premium. For example, the average 60-year-old incurs four times the medical expense of the average 25-year-old, but under community rating both pay the same premium (i.e., young people are overcharged and the elderly undercharged).

*A "pay-as-you-go" system. Unlike genuine catastrophic hospital insurance that placed premiums in growing reserves to pay claims, the new Blues' "insurance" collected premiums that only covered expected costs over the following year. If a large group of policyholders became ill over several years, the premiums of all policyholders had to be raised to cover the increase in costs.

These traits spell cost-explosion disaster, so naturally they were incorporated into the federal government's Medicare and Medicaid programs when they were created in the mid-1960s to address the problem of healthcare being unaffordable for the poor and elderly — a problem the state and federal governments created!"

Nope, instead we get something that does nothing to ease competition restrictions in medicine, something in fact that does absolutely nothing to deal with rising costs. Of course it will be a failure.

"Voters naïve enough to think they will get a complete repeal from the Republican Party appear to be in for a major disappointment. "Obamacare," with its continuance of socialized costs for private gains in American medicine, was the treatment that the conservative Republican doctor had in mind for some time. The problem is that the Democrats were the first to implement it."
Read more: 100 Years of US Medical Fascism - Dale Steinreich - Mises Institute 100 Years of US Medical Fascism - Dale Steinreich - Mises Institute
 
How do you veto a bill you already passed?
 
How do you veto a bill you already passed?

Don't fund it in 2011 and 2012.

Repeal it in 2013 when the democrats are no longer a viable political party.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The number of U.S. voters who expect the recently passed health care bill to increase the federal deficit is at its highest level yet, and most voters continue to favor its repeal.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows 63% now believe the health care reform legislation signed into law is likely to increase the federal deficit. That’s up four points from last week and up three points from when the law was passed in March.

Only 12% expect the law to reduce the deficit, down four points over the past week and the lowest level measured to date. Another 16% say the law will have no impact.

The percentage of voters who expect the law to increase the deficit has ranged from 57% to 63% since March.

Support for repeal is proving to be just as consistent as opposition to the plan before it was passed into law. Fifty-six percent (56%) now favor repeal, including 46% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed to repeal, with 28% Strongly Opposed.

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

You can bet this going to be a big issue for the next 3 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom