The Congressional Budget Office concluded this week that the GOP health care reform proposal would end up adding about 6 million people to the ranks of the uninsured. By 2019, 52 million people would be uninsured (up from 46 million today). In comparison, the CBO determined that the Democrats’ bill would leave about 18 million uninsured. The Democrats’ bill also would reduce the deficit more than the Republican plan, the CBO calculated. “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,” wrote Ezra Klein of the Washington Post.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Chas on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- American_Way on Open thread 11/21
- American_Way on Open thread 11/21
- American_Way on Open thread 11/21
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
29 Comments
Cue the conservative-spam and personal attacks in. . . .3. . . .2 . . . .1.
And with that, gotta go. I have a life.
WE Blog CONs flogged us all summer with the CBO’s analysis of a preliminary proposal last June.
Where are they today?
The Democrats’ bill also would reduce the deficit
roflmao!
lol!!
slaps knee
hahahaha!
Yeah right…
This administration lies too! What’s new.
Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium
“Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.”
THE SICK BAS/TARDS !
“GOP health care reform proposal would end up adding about 6 million people to the ranks of the uninsured. By 2019, 52 million people would be uninsured (up from 46 million today).”
_____________________________
Well that seems a move in the wrong direction.
Hey boxic,
Cons cause abortions too! Why shouldn’t they pay their fair share for them?
The money quote:
“Republicans said their plan was not intended to rapidly expand coverage, but to take a step-by-step approach that begins with lower insurance costs. Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, hailed the CBO’s assessment as confirmation that the GOP plan would bring insurance premiums down by as much as 10 percent in the small group market, a significant improvement over the Democratic bill.
“This bill will significantly reduce health care premiums and insure millions of Americans without raising taxes or spending $1 trillion, which is what the Democrats do,” Camp said in a statement.”"
===
And that’s borne out by the CBO estimate.
Here’s a slightly different view:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CBO-Prepublican-health-plan-would-reduce-premiums–69270747.html
and the money quote there:
“According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.”
—–
Hmmm. Given our fiscal situation, anyone want to explain to me how NOT spending a trillion dollars we don’t have, while lowering medical premiums, is a bad thing?
18 mil. or 52 mil. what do you do? What do you do!
Guess it dependes if you’re trying to benefit the haves, or the have nots and the haves. Of course repubs only concern are for the first group.
I think I can go the cons one better and get health ins. rated decreased by 20% or more. Encourage ins. companies to do more careful screenings before insuring (maybe work up a genetics profile) and drop everyone that gets seriously ill!
No, cons you can’t have the idea, it’s mine!
GMC gives us an editorial from the Washington (nothing but conservative commentary-Anshultz) Examiner.
Other than modestly lowering premiums, what exactly is it that the Republican Plan does? A major driver of high health care costs is largely the large pool of uninsured. The Republican plan does nothing to address this primary issue. This is a classic do (almost) nothing approach to the problem by faux fiscal conservatives.
There are some things that require government intervention and action, no matter what those who shut their eyes tightly and mutter “government regulation and more taxes always bad” mantra. A serious plan has to seriously cut into the numbers of the uninsured. Period.
This is not a serious proposal, and Camp and his colleagues know it.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=414
The “money quote”:
“The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019—83 percent—would be roughly in line with the current share.”
The Republican plan is also inadequate to address the people who are denied coverage, or are unable to afford coverage, because of pre-existing conditions. Way to be tone deaf, Repubs.
http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/05/debbie-wasserman-schultz/wasserman-schultz-says-gop-alternative-health-care/
“There are some things that require government intervention and action, no matter what those who shut their eyes tightly and mutter ‘government regulation and more taxes always bad’ mantra want to believe.
I will add this, I think that the Republicans could have put together a much more serious effort that focused on reducing the upfront costs of the current Democratic Senate proposal (costs that many blue dog Democrats will have difficulty in swallowing).
Want to save even more money? Cap medical malpractice suits at say 20 grand!
My Medical care reform plan
Basic Healthcare reform
1. Deport all illegal immigrants. Prior to deportation, all medical care for illegal immigrants reimbursed by the Federal Government. No cost shifting to states, counties, or any other entities.
2. Revise tort laws. Examples could be: Lawyers fees fixed at 20% of damages awarded. Damages awarded limited to actual and anticipated costs and losses. Penalty awards limited to 1x actual damages. .
3. Doctors found to be grossly negligent, found to be incompetent, found to file fraudulent claims lose their license to practice medicine for a minimum of five years
4. Insurance companies Required to renew subscribers for any reason other than premiums not paid. Insurance companies cannot disallow preexisting conditions UNLESS change of carrier by personal choice, and not foisted upon by conditions outside the control of the applicant. Rates to be based on general population actuarial tables for person type primarily as a function of sex and age. Poor lifestyle choices (such as smoking, obesity, etc) could result in higher premium. Preventative medicine takes higher priority, and lifestyle remediation paid for.
5. All persons required to own health insurance plan or be self insured. . Those without health insurance still treated for emergency conditions-whether life threatening or not and will be responsible for the cost of care.. Any person responsible for the care of another, and not providing insurance, or self insurance sufficient to cover the medical needs for that person, will be subject to criminal or civil penalties.
6. Basic plan would be $1000 deductible per person $3000 deductible per family, 80/20 cost sharing. Premiums based on aggregate population groups. . Lower deductibles, lower cost sharing ratio, higher first cost allowable made available for optional purchase.
7. Premiums may be paid by employer but not required. Insurance premiums paid by either subscriber, or by employer, to be treated as a deduction for tax purposes by the payer.
8. Medical bankruptcy formed as a special subset of bankruptcies and could only be used if the insurance was in existence. Cannot lose home, necessary transportation, etc. Small percentage of disposable income able to be attached to satisfy debt. Medical bankruptcy not counted against personal credit, unless no insurance in the effect.
9. Medicare coverage reduced to deductible exposure only. Other than that basic plan,.
10. Medicaid/schipp etc eliminated as a program.
11. Those with preexisting condition not currently with insurance, or unable to get insurance, moved to a high risk pool. Premiums based on current standards. Extra premium paid out of Federal tax dollars under the Medicare umbrella.
I’m not sure what the Republican plan accomplishes. Maybe they are trying to stake out territory for negotiations after the Dem plan fails to pass. The cost difference is compelling (60 billion vs 1,000 billion) but I think that most folks and most Republicans think that change is needed that will expand the availability of health insurance. And that will cost some money. There are things that can be done to accomplish this without spending a trillion dollars and without a government option. But Republicans have missed the opportunity to show that.
I’m disappointed.
My Medical care reform plan
Basic Healthcare reform
Everyone eat less and exercise more.
That will save an estimated 70-75 percent
of all health care costs. If you have the
correct weight and exercise, your insurance
is, say $50 a month. If not, $500 a month.
Do I have to solve all your problems today?
Guess so. Next problem, please.
As poor as the repub plan is the dems would still reduce the deficit more! Bhwaaaaaa!
Well, Phantom that’s not that hard. Libs know how to reduce the deficit. You just tax the sh*t out of the middle class and up.
No health care reform from anyone leave it alone.
What they do not tell you is the dims plan will get rid of the medicare advantage plans that 25% of seniors in Kansas have now.
Seniors will go back to paying higher premiums, less benefits and difficulty finding a doctor that will take them.
Why are the dims doing this to seniors?
Don’t get rid of the medicare advantage plans, where 14 cents of every govt. dollar goes for direct payment for health care!
They’re not TALKING about ELECTIVE abortions you numbskull. Abortions for medical reasons IS HEALTHCARE and dam you to hades if you oppose it! I am so SICK of men who think that women should give up their life and health to give birth. We are NOT incubators, but people!
But that’s the cons for you- when they get caught being douchy with a report like this showing them to be the ashhats they really are, best thing they can do is scream ABORTION and their base all falls in line.
Those medical advantage plans that seniors are paying out the behind for with little benefit will be replaced with better coverage and they won’t be eaten alive by the premiums.
But nice try Politico.
George, get rid of your healthcare. I’ll vote to tatake away yours since you keep trying to keep people from living. Cons scream about a woman’s choice, but deny living breathing people from living. Such hypocrites.
Those premiums are Politico’s bread and butter!
I’ve been looking at those medicare advantage plans, little differences between the ones with additional premiums and the ones with 0 additional premiums.
And, Okie moaning about her friend that paid over 400$ a month for medicare, is because her friend couldn’t come up with the 10 Qtrs of participation in medicare premiums. Pity that person, probably didn’t pay any income tax during their careers either.
I say that if they disallow tax funds going to pay for medically necessary abortions then no tax money should be allocated for boner pills.
Don’t worry limp d!cks, you’ll still have yer gunz!
Politico aka Franklin aka Econ 101 etc. ad nauseum returns to his Frankfurtian bullsh*t ways spewing nonsense about Medicare Advantage.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/boehner-misrepresents-factcheckorgs-findings/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/ahip-on-the-attack-50-percent-of-what/
Exercise more? It’s cheaper just to make automobile-commuting uneconomical, say by taxing private car fuel usage, rush-hour toll, preferred lanes for buses and human-powered mode of transport, encouraging neighborhood mini-marts as opposed to big-box mega-malls, have the public subsidize public transportation, etc. Make people walk more, at the least. Maybe they’ll even meet their neighbors on their way to park-and-ride drop-off points.
Hey guys, will the general public (those that don’t read the WSJ) hear about the sneaky taxes in Nancy’s health care bill.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511794170939688.html
Seems the Dems have done the nastiest type of tax increase on the poor young supporters of Obama.
The Dems have NOT INDEXED their tax rates in the new Health bill. To funny, this will drive all their supporters into massive tax increases very soon. Once the inflation starts rolling from all these bailouts etc. They will be hit with likely massive taxes. And not the 5% they now speak of….heh.
Maybe this would be a good story for the local paper….but then people might wake up to whats going on, so Im guessing not.