genoves
0 Reply report Sat 20 Jun, 2009 01:37 pm Editorial- Chicago Tribune
Sticker shock
June 20, 2009
Talk about bad timing for President Barack Obama.
There he was on Monday, exhorting doctors at an American Medical Association confab to join his once-in-a-generation overhaul of health care in America. He drew several standing ovations, even as he told them things that would probably cut their pay.
But then, on the same day, came an astonishing Congressional Budget Office analysis of what all this could cost.
The CBO analyzed the first major health-care proposal introduced, by Sen. Edward Kennedy, and concluded that it would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years. That sent a jolt of sticker shock through Congress.
But hold on. Here's the kicker to that breathtaking figure: Even after spending all that money, 37 million Americans still wouldn't have health insurance.
Yes, that's a tentative analysis, as the CBO warned. It will change as the bill is fleshed out. And the Kennedy bill is only one of several health-care reform proposals now percolating in Congress.
But the analysis sure seemed to rattle advocacy groups and the White House. "This is not the administration's bill and it's not even the final Senate committee bill," a White House spokesman said.
Ooh, chilly.
So, OK, this is a work in progress, things will change, blah blah blah. But the point here is that the CBO analysis tells us three things that probably won't change, no matter how a major health-care reform law is crafted.
It will be:
--Complicated.
--Extremely expensive.
--Full of unforeseen consequences.
Congress doesn't have to take our word for it. Lawmakers can learn from the experience of Massachusetts, the first state to mandate health insurance coverage.
How are things going there? We'd say it's mixed.
At last count, the Bay State had the lowest rate of uninsured people in the nation, 2.6 percent. That's compared to the national average of 15 percent. Those holdouts are either unwilling to pay for insurance (and willing to incur the penalties assessed by the state) or they can't afford the insurance (even with state subsidies) and aren't required to buy it. Conclusion: Even if coverage is mandated, Congress will have to settle for something less than universal coverage.
Then there's the budget. The state expected to spend $472 million in fiscal 2008 for its health-care plan. The actual cost: $628 million. Budget projections for fiscal 2010 range from $750 million to $880 million. The state is struggling because it underestimated the number of adults who would sign up for subsidized insurance, which under some circumstances covers a family of four that earns up to about $66,000.
Conclusion: Congress has considered subsidizing American families earning up to $110,000 to buy insurance. That would be too broad and too expensive. It appears that lawmakers are moving away from such a commitment.
Beyond the numbers, what about suddenly insured patients who need care? A recent report by the Urban Institute wasn't too reassuring. It found that even those who got health-care coverage in Massachusetts found they couldn't afford needed treatments. It's not clear why.
The sudden influx of the insured has strained the health-care system in the Bay State. Patients report long waits to see doctors. One in five patients has reported being told that a doctor was not accepting new patients, or not accepting patients with their type of insurance, according to the report.
The upshot: People still wound up in emergency rooms for routine care. That undercuts a major premise for covering all Americans, which is to stop them from going to the emergency room for routine care that could be less expensively dispensed in the doctor's office.
Obama wants to push a bill through Congress before the August recess. That deadline may be slipping, thanks in part to this bolt of fiscal reality from the CBO.
@ican711nm,
ican: You gotta' know it's pretty bad when even the
possum thinks your ideas are crazy.
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
Quote:I think the point they were making is that you would need to balance NBC or ABC with Fox to get a good balance of the news.
I disagree. I think the point they were making is that you need to pick and choose which shows you watch from any of the networks to get a balanced view. To say otherwise would infer that equal doses of Olbermann and O'Reilly would result in a balanced view. That's like saying that if the world is made up of only millionaires and poor people then the average person is well off.
Well I was speaking more generically of course, but I will concede that you are correct that the study concluded that you would need to balance a specific program from ABC or NBC with a specific program from Fox to get a complete and balanced view.
The point the study was making however is that of all the television news sources available to us, the only one that tilts right is Fox, and without including it, one is unlikely to get a balanced view of the news of the day. We can narrow that down to specific programming if one wants to be absolutely precise about that.
I'm looking for a print source to verify this, but according to commentary listened to on TV early this morning, the following facts were put out there:
1. The President's proposed healthcare package will cost the taxpayers something like $3 trillion--that's trillion with a T--dollars over the next 10 years.
2. While he assures everybody that they can keep their current healthcare plan if they want to, he proposes paying for the government plan by taxing the benefits when your employer furnishes such private healthcare plan.
3. Those receiving the government benefits will be exempt from the tax.
4. Union members will be exempt from the tax.
5. Nobody will be able to opt out and must choose a private or government plan.
If this is correct, is there any question remaining that the President intends to dismantle the free market for health care one way or another?
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm looking for a print source to verify this, but according to commentary listened to on TV early this morning, the following facts were put out there:
Usually, you get those "facts" (*) in your email ...
(*) You look for a verification of this; you write that's a commentary - but then you write about "facts".
Trying to find the name for the female Janus now.
@Foxfyre,
The healthcare issue is an important one that needs input from a wide range of people (regardless of their political beliefs). The rise in healthcare costs has been described as TWICE the rate of inflation.
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
The rise in healthcare costs has been described as TWICE the rate of inflation.
ObamaCare will make the cost rise well beyond TWICE the rate of inflation.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm looking for a print source to verify this, but according to commentary listened to on TV early this morning, the following facts were put out there:
Usually, you get those "facts" (*) in your email ...
(*) You look for a verification of this; you write that's a commentary - but then you write about "facts".
Trying to find the name for the female Janus now.
I quite rarely post 'facts' from email, but do so when I think such 'facts' are particularly pertinent or interesting to the topic or thread at hand. If you disapprove of the 'facts' I post so much, why don't you simply put me on ignore or just scroll over my posts, and what I choose to post won't irritate you so much. Thank you very much. (As an alternative, if you think such 'facts' are incorrect, why not participate in the discussion and provide alternate information instead of criticizing me for posting them.)
Or do you think I should first consult you about what is and is not appropriate to post on a thread before posting it?
@Foxfyre,
Fox, you said you were going to look for a print source to verify your post. Why didn't you find that first before posting it?
T
K
O
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I quite rarely post 'facts' from email, but do so when I think such 'facts' are particularly pertinent or interesting to the topic or thread at hand. If you disapprove of the 'facts' I post so much, why don't you simply put me on ignore or just scroll over my posts, and what I choose to post won't irritate you so much. Thank you very much. (As an alternative, if you think such 'facts' are incorrect, why not participate in the discussion and provide alternate information instead of criticizing me for posting them.)
Or do you think I should first consult you about what is and is not appropriate to post on a thread before posting it?
We have a different opinion about what 'rarely' means.
I appreciate facts whether I like them or not.
I don't give a lot about hearsays and rumours.
I don't like it when someone sells hearsays and/or rumours as facts.
I've put no-one on ignore and will continue to post here if you like it or not.
OBAMA MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE HIGH CRIMES HE HAS COMMITTED AGAINST AMERICA’S GENERAL WELFARE.
(1) Obama is transfering property from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.
(2) Obama is denying corporate bond holders of bankrupt corporations their full lawful equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees.
(3) Obama is refusing to allow corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans without his permission.
(4) Obama is forcing selected car dealer businesses to close.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm looking for a print source to verify this, but according to commentary listened to on TV early this morning, the following facts were put out there:
1. The President's proposed healthcare package will cost the taxpayers something like $3 trillion--that's trillion with a T--dollars over the next 10 years.
This is more than double the largest projection I have seen; and it doesn't count the money taxpayers are already spending on other forms of insurance, I guarantee.
Quote:
2. While he assures everybody that they can keep their current healthcare plan if they want to, he proposes paying for the government plan by taxing the benefits when your employer furnishes such private healthcare plan.
This is one proposal, yes.
Quote:
3. Those receiving the government benefits will be exempt from the tax.
Never heard that.
Quote:
4. Union members will be exempt from the tax.
I think if you think about it, this is a little silly, Fox.
Quote:5. Nobody will be able to opt out and must choose a private or government plan.
If this is correct, is there any question remaining that the President intends to dismantle the free market for health care one way or another?
I think 5 is probably going to end up happening though I wish it wouldn't.
As for your final sentence, the answer is: yes, there is 'question' remaining; appealing to extremes and inflating numbers doesn't solve such questions.
Cycloptichorn
@Walter Hinteler,
I have not suggested or even hinted that you should not post here. You certainly express your opinion about what you have seen or heard or understand without feeling it necessary to post a link when you do that and frequently brag about your 'superior' education that presumably is your authority to do that. But I suppose that is a privilege that should be reserved for you and perhaps a few others you annoint, but not everybody? And if you do it, it is not 'hearsay' but only if I do it?
If I disagree with what you post, I'll give a reason for my disagreement. I won't be so self-important or self-righteous to be telling you what you should and should not post.
@Diest TKO,
Foxy prefers "listening" to the TV, most likely POX News where the pundits just spout out whatever crosses their mind without verification -- it's filtered through the sieve of the conservative mind and the real facts stay in the sieve.
@Lightwizard,
POX NEWS = Any speech by PrezBO
@ican711nm,
Article II Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Quote:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=crime&x=30&y=8
Main Entry: 1
crime
...
Function: noun
...
1 a : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law of a sovereign state to the injury of the public welfare and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law in a proceeding brought against him by the state by indictment, information, complaint, or similar criminal procedure : an offense against public law (as a misdemeanor, felony, or act of treason) providing a penalty against the offender
...
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=misdemeanor
Main Entry:
mis·de·mean·or
...
1 : a crime less than a felony; specifically : a crime that is not punishable by death or imprisonment in a state penitentiary
...
@ican711nm,
Obama is a gangster and must be removed from office as soon as practical.
@ican711nm,
To increase their House and Senate Seats, Republicans must make a credible concerted effort to impeach Obama before the 2010 elections.
Whether or not the Republicans succeed in impeaching Obama with Democrat support before the 2010 elections, will have no effect on the 2010 election results. On the other hand, failure of the Republicans to make a credible concerted effort to impeach Obama prior to the 2010 elections, will cost them more House and Senate seats.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm looking for a print source to verify this, but according to commentary listened to on TV early this morning, the following facts were put out there:
1. The President's proposed healthcare package will cost the taxpayers something like $3 trillion--that's trillion with a T--dollars over the next 10 years.
This is more than double the largest projection I have seen; and it doesn't count the money taxpayers are already spending on other forms of insurance, I guarantee.
The problem is that the government consistently grossly underestimates or downplays the cost of just about every big project they want the people to swallow:
Quote:
June 16, 2009 4:00 AM
The High Cost of ObamaCare
Americans wisely rejected HillaryCare. ObamaCare is the same poison, different bottle.
By Lawrence A. Hunter
President Obama spoke to the American Medical Association yesterday and repeated the same platitudes and promises he has been uttering ever since the presidential campaign. What he did not explain, however, is how he intends to square the circle of providing universal, top-quality health care for everyone without imposing health-care rationing, without raising taxes on the middle class, and without blowing another trillion-dollar hole in the budget.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?[/b]q=ZGFhMTc5MDYyOGNjOTU4NjNkYjY5OTk5ZmI5NGM0YTc=#more
Quote:Quote:
2. While he assures everybody that they can keep their current healthcare plan if they want to, he proposes paying for the government plan by taxing the benefits when your employer furnishes such private healthcare plan.
This is one proposal, yes.
Which would be another breaking of his pledge not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, yes?
Quote:Quote:
3. Those receiving the government benefits will be exempt from the tax.
Never heard that.
Well I sure haven't seen anything to suggest that those receiving Obamacare will be taxed on those benefits; just that they will pay very large taxes to pay for it, but Walter will probably accuse me of more hearsay so I will express that as my opinion only for now.
Quote:Quote:
4. Union members will be exempt from the tax.
I think if you think about it, this is a little silly, Fox.
Is it?
Quote:. . . .The attack against Mr. Wyden was an early shot across the Baucus-Obama bow, and it resonated. Mr. Baucus officially floated his plans for a tax this week, only with a surprising twist: His levy will not apply to union plans, at least for the duration of existing contracts. In other words, Mr. Baucus intends to tax the health-care benefits only of those who didn't spend a fortune electing Democrats to office. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who is circulating his own health-care reform, has also included provisions that will exempt unions from certain provisions. . . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476309180208203.html
Quote:Quote:5. Nobody will be able to opt out and must choose a private or government plan.
If this is correct, is there any question remaining that the President intends to dismantle the free market for health care one way or another?
I think 5 is probably going to end up happening though I wish it wouldn't.
As for your final sentence, the answer is: yes, there is 'question' remaining; appealing to extremes and inflating numbers doesn't solve such questions.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:Morning Bell: The Unprincipled Fight for Government-Run Health CarePosted May 1st, 2009 at 9.18am in Health Care.
Last year, then-candidate Barack Obama told a rally in Albuquerque, “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.” Earlier this month in Chicago, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told a rally of government-run health care supporters: “I know many of you here today are single payer advocates and so am I … and those of us who are pushing for a public health insurance don’t disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there and I believe we will.”
The fact that the left views a public plan option as part of an unprincipled strategy to eventually achieve government-run health care is not news. That Members of Congress are now so openly admitting it, is. So what is the left’s “strategy” for turning a seemingly innocuous public health insurance option into single payer nationalized medicine? It goes something like this:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/01/morning-bell-the-unprincipled-fight-for-government-run-health-care/
