More From The CBO

[Gaspar]

So Rwarn, are you saying that this bill will reduce the deficit a little in the next ten years and a lot in the next twenty?

Is that what you're saying?

That it will reduce, not increase, the deficit?

And will using my credit card more, really save me money?

[Red Arrow]

According to my credit card company, every time I use my card it saves me money!

Which card?  I want to save enough to retire in a few years.

[rwarn17588]

So Rwarn, are you saying that this bill will reduce the deficit a little in the next ten years and a lot in the next twenty?

Is that what you're saying?

That it will reduce, not increase, the deficit?

That's not what I'm saying. It's what the CBO is saying, which is nonpartisan, and therefore has a helluva lot of credibility.

[Conan71]

Senator Coburn was on KRMG this morning.  He claims that the current HCR bill does nothing to cut medical costs which HAS to be a key component of of reform.  Can any of you specifically state the mechanism of how the current bill reduces health care costs?  Other than resorting to snippets from the CBO on how it will reduce the deficit?

Coburn sent a letter after the SOTU address to President Obama, which appears to have been ignored even though the President requested alternate solutions to health care.  His proposal makes perfect sense to me.  Of course if you can't take off your "Coburn is an embarrasment" filter to read it, it will have no meaning to you in the first place.

"Dear President Obama,

We share your belief that health reform is not only needed, but is long overdue. During Wednesday’s State of the Union address you told the nation, “If anyone from either party has a better approach [than the current proposals] that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

We are hopeful that we can begin anew in the spirit of true bipartisanship and again submit our reform proposal to you. On May 20, 2009, we introduced comprehensive health reform legislation, The Patients’ Choice Act. We believe this legislation would put patients and physicians back in control of health care decisions. We hope you will seriously consider this legislation, because it accomplishes each of the goals you have outlined, but does so without dramatically expanding the size and scope of the federal government or raising taxes. These legitimate concerns are a primary reason reform efforts have stalled, and we would appreciate consideration of a different approach to our shared goals."

This appears to have been ignored.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b96eb964-9511-4f0c-b6b4-379717346ac1

[rwarn17588]

Senator Coburn was on KRMG this morning.  He claims that the current HCR bill does nothing to cut medical costs which HAS to be a key component of of reform.  Can any of you specifically state the mechanism of how the current bill reduces health care costs?  Other than resorting to snippets from the CBO on how it will reduce the deficit?

Coburn was yapping before the CBO report came out. I'd say the report renders his comments irrelevant.

[Conan71]

Coburn was yapping before the CBO report came out. I'd say the report renders his comments irrelevant.

So just summarily dismiss his plan and comments because you don't like him.  Check.

[rwarn17588]

So just summarily dismiss his plan and comments because you don't like him.  Check.

If you have a partisan vs. a nonpartisan report, which is more credible?

CBO has analyzed the other GOP health plans, and their scores were terrible.

If Coburn's deal is so great, have it dissected by the CBO and see what it says.

Coburn says his legislation is, at best, revenue-neutral. The current health-care plan, according to the CBO, does better than that and cuts the deficit.

Coburn is supposedly a deficit hawk. If the current plan, according a nonpartisan analyst, cuts the deficit, then what's his problem with it?

[Gaspar]

So just summarily dismiss his plan and comments because you don't like him.  Check.

Of course.  He's a stupid Republican and a greedy doctor.  His plan does not do what the president's plan promises to do.  Which we don't know.

. . .and the CBO just received the revised bill this morning.  They will score the new bill this afternoon, and it will be posted for 72hour review on Friday.  Apparently now it's a completely different bill.  The President said in his interview yesterday that we will have a plenty of time to review all 2,000 pages on the website before it's voted on.

The Patient's Choice Act has been available for review since May 2009.  It exposes the insurance companies to MASSIVE competition by forcing them to compete.  The big insurance companies would never support this bill because it would drastically lower premiums and expand coverage.  The  bill was also doomed because it was only 80 pages long.  Not long enough to conceal enough pork.

[Conan71]

If you have a partisan vs. a nonpartisan report, which is more credible?

CBO has analyzed the other GOP health plans, and their scores were terrible.

If Coburn's deal is so great, have it dissected by the CBO and see what it says.

Coburn says his legislation is, at best, revenue-neutral. The current health-care plan, according to the CBO, does better than that and cuts the deficit.

Coburn is supposedly a deficit hawk. If the current plan, according a nonpartisan analyst, cuts the deficit, then what's his problem with it?

According to Coburn, it does nothing to address the overall costs of health care which was supposed to be a cornerstone of any reform.

Again, can anyone explain a mechanism to how the current bill under consideration will cut HEALTH CARE costs, not cited CBO numbers on what it does to deficit spending?  Does anyone even care, or do you just want to be able to say "health care reform"?

And on another front:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100318/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

"It would restructure one-sixth of the U.S. economy in the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare was created in 1965. It would also impose new obligations on individuals and businesses, requiring for the first time that most Americans carry health insurance and penalizing medium-sized and large companies that don't provide coverage for their workers.

Hospitals and doctors, drug companies and insurers would gain millions of new paying customers, but they would also have to adjust to major changes. Medicare cuts would force hospitals to operate more efficiently or risk going out of business. Insurance companies would face unprecendented federal regulation. Health care industries would be hit with new federal taxes, as would upper-income households."

How, exactly, do you lower costs when health care industries must pay more in taxes?

How will hospitals streamline costs? By cutting staff, curtailing reinvestment in facilities and equipment, and providing less service. 

Not good.

[Gaspar]

If you have a partisan vs. a nonpartisan report, which is more credible?

CBO has analyzed the other GOP health plans, and their scores were terrible.

If Coburn's deal is so great, have it dissected by the CBO and see what it says.

Coburn says his legislation is, at best, revenue-neutral. The current health-care plan, according to the CBO, does better than that and cuts the deficit.

Coburn is supposedly a deficit hawk. If the current plan, according a nonpartisan analyst, cuts the deficit, then what's his problem with it?

No that is incorrect.  The preliminary response from the CBO was that the plan was considered as "Budget Neutral"

"reduce spending on mandatory programs by about $41 billion and would increase revenues by $13 billion as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of private health insurance plans (which would result in a shift of some workers' compensation from nontaxable health insurance benefits to taxable wages)."


But who cares.  It's dead.  We've got a new bill.  Can't wait to see what's in it.

[rwarn17588]

No that is incorrect.  The preliminary response from the CBO was that the plan was considered as "Budget Neutral"

The bill summary itself also uses the "revenue-neutral" description.

But, again, this CBO report really puts Republicans in a box. Are they against a bill that would reduce the deficit and expand health coverage to more Americans?

[Gaspar]

The bill summary itself also uses the "revenue-neutral" description.

But, again, this CBO report really puts Republicans in a box. Are they against a bill that would reduce the deficit and expand health coverage to more Americans?

You are correct about that.  It's all marketing.

[Conan71]

Of course.  He's a stupid Republican and a greedy doctor.  His plan does not do what the president's plan promises to do.  Which we don't know.

. . .and the CBO just received the revised bill this morning.  They will score the new bill this afternoon, and it will be posted for 72hour review on Friday.  Apparently now it's a completely different bill.  The President said in his interview yesterday that we will have a plenty of time to review all 2,000 pages on the website before it's voted on.

The Patient's Choice Act has been available for review since May 2009.  It exposes the insurance companies to MASSIVE competition by forcing them to compete.  The big insurance companies would never support this bill because it would drastically lower premiums and expand coverage.  The  bill was also doomed because it was only 80 pages long.  Not long enough to conceal enough pork.

Really? Posted Friday for 72 hour review?  The story I just posted says The House will vote on Sunday.  Now why would they do that?  Best day to slip in a pile?

[Gaspar]

Really? Posted Friday for 72 hour review?  The story I just posted says The House will vote on Sunday.  Now why would they do that?  Best day to slip in a pile?

Well. . . The LAW states that they have to offer members of congress 72 hours after CBO scoring.  I may be very wrong, but I think they still have to obey the law.

[Conan71]

...congress...obey the law.

Freudian slip?