CBO deals new blow to health plan

celticlord · 07-25-09, 05:40 PM

CBO deals new blow to health plan - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com

Quote:

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

Proving once again, sports fans, that HR3200 is a $1 Trillion spending spree with no cost controls and no efforts to plausibly address the real economic issues within health care.

Dear Leader lied when he said this plan would be deficit neutral.

The Anti-Republicans lied when they said this would control costs.

HR3200 is NOT health care reform
HR3200 is $1 Trillion spent on less care

RightinNYC · 07-25-09, 05:47 PM

Quote:

White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

Quote:

But on Saturday, the CBO said that the proposal . . . would only save about $2 billion over 10 years

That's pretty bad messaging for the White House.

DarkWizard12 · 07-25-09, 05:50 PM

This thread is relevant to my interests.

/subscribe.

jackalope · 07-25-09, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

That's pretty bad messaging for the White House.

Yup, it is. I was just reading about this on Politico.

When you get into the details, it might be good news for the American people, down the road (past the 10 yr scoring), but in terms of helping to pay for the health care legislation, and passing it, no, it's not good news for the WH.

There was a separate, new Medicare deal reached last night w/ regard to eliminating disparities b/w high-cost states like NY, and low cost states like MN/IA/WI. It was only arrived at last night, and hasn't been scored yet by the CBO, so I don't know if it will do what they say it will. But it does sound like it has a big cost savings potential.

( I posted the article in a different thread, but here's a link to last night's Med deal )

jackalope · 07-25-09, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celticlord

CBO deals new blow to health plan - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com

Proving once again, sports fans, that HR3200 is a $1 Trillion spending spree with no cost controls and no efforts to plausibly address the real economic issues within health care.

Dear Leader lied when he said this plan would be deficit neutral.

The Anti-Republicans lied when they said this would control costs.

HR3200 is NOT health care reform
HR3200 is $1 Trillion spent on less care

Um, no. This CBO news is not good news in terms of helping pay for legislation, no question, but neither is it what you say up above. In fact, what you say above is not rooted in any fact at all, but is in line with Republican messaging. Typically fact-free.

celticlord · 07-25-09, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackalope

Um, no. The CBO is not good news, no question, but neither is it what you say up above. In fact, what you say above is not rooted in any fact at all, but is in line with Republican messaging. Typically fact-free.

Quote:

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

The CBO did not say HR3200 would cost $1 Trillion?

Quote:

"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis,"

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf did not say the independent Medicare commission would not save any money?

RightinNYC · 07-25-09, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackalope

There was a separate, new Medicare deal reached last night w/ regard to eliminating disparities b/w high-cost states like NY, and low cost states like MN/IA/WI. It was only arrived at last night, and hasn't been scored yet by the CBO, so I don't know if it will do what they say it will. But it does sound like it has a big cost savings potential.

( I posted the article in a different thread, but here's a link to last night's Med deal )

So the idea is to save money by eliminating a pay disparity that exists with good reason? That seems absolutely idiotic.

Medicare costs more in NYC and LA than it does in MN or IA because everything costs more in NYC and LA than it does in MN or IA. The government acknowledges this, and even pays extra in every other aspect of administration, so why on earth would someone propose eliminating the COL adjustment, unless they were simply trying to come up with a way to reduce costs on paper regardless of whether it makes sense?

jackalope · 07-25-09, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celticlord

The CBO did not say HR3200 would cost $1 Trillion?

No, it did not. Just as profit does not equal sales; neither does the cost of this program equal only expenses. Thought you said you put in two decades with P&Ls? This is accounting 101, you don't even need a fancy report to get that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by celticlord

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf did not say the independent Medicare commission would not save any money?

No, he didn't. However he did say the savings were likely to be small. However, this one provision is not the bill. It is not even part of the report you got so very wrong last night. It's a scoring on a single provision, released just today.

jackalope · 07-25-09, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

So the idea is to save money by eliminating a pay disparity that exists with good reason? That seems absolutely idiotic.

Medicare costs more in NYC and LA than it does in MN or IA because everything costs more in NYC and LA than it does in MN or IA. The government acknowledges this, and even pays extra in every other aspect of administration, so why on earth would someone propose eliminating the COL adjustment, unless they were simply trying to come up with a way to reduce costs on paper regardless of whether it makes sense?

Yup. It will force inefficient states to compete with efficient states, or pay for the excesses themselves. Currently bloated inefficient states are paid more, because they are inefficient. Lower cost, efficient states get paid less, because they worked to control costs. Makes NO sense at all.

And, if everything costs more in NYC and LA, well that's a problem they'll have to work out themselves, because they didn't PAY any more into the system than low-cost states did. NYC doesn't pay Medicare at a higher percentage, no reason to collect it.

RightinNYC · 07-25-09, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackalope

Yup. It will force inefficient states to compete with efficient states, or pay for the excesses themselves. Currently bloated inefficient states are paid more, because they are inefficient. Lower cost, efficient states get paid less, because they worked to control costs. Makes NO sense at all.

Are you seriously arguing that the reason things cost more in NYC or LA is because NYC and LA are "less efficient" than MN or IA?

Quote:

And, if everything costs more in NYC and LA, well that's a problem they'll have to work out themselves, because they didn't PAY any more into the system than low-cost states did. NYC doesn't pay Medicare at a higher percentage, no reason to collect it.

Do you really think we should shift to a system where federal money is distributed based on what areas pay in more? I can guarantee you that if we do, it won't be NYC or LA that loses out.

The rich (and high COL) areas in this country subsidize the **** out of the poor (and low COL) areas of this country.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to celticlord For This Useful Post:
Goshin

The Following User Says Thank You to RightinNYC For This Useful Post:
Zyphlin

The Following User Says Thank You to jackalope For This Useful Post:
formerroadie

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RightinNYC For This Useful Post:
Ethereal, Zyphlin