IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

any reason we should not expect the program to be ended or gutted as soon as the republicans regain the majority? They likely will, possibly soon.

Big question mark: Fate of health care in Senate (AP)

Nov. 8, 2009, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)AP - The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.

CBO: Senate Bill Costs $849 Billion, Major Deficit Reducer
Brian Beutler | November 18, 2009, 4:52PM

Democratic leadership has distributed figures to reporters from a CBO analysis of Senate health care legislation. The numbers affirm what we reported this morning--that Majority Leader Harry Reid is very pleased.

The health care bill--which includes an opt-out public option--will require $849 billion over 10 years in new spending, to be paid for with cuts to Medicare, while reducing the deficit by $127 billion.

In that time it will extend coverage to 31 million Americans--94 percent of citizens will be covered by 2019.

Over the second 10 years, CBO projects even greater cost savings--up to $650 billion, with the caveat that after 10 years, their analyses become highly uncertain.

This meets all of President Obama's goals, and, as has been the pattern during this legislative process, the Senate bill comes at a lower cost, and with greater cost-savings than the House bill, while the House bill covers more Americans.

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2003 and 2004 at $44,389, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004. The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004. The number of people with health insurance increased by 2.0 million to 245.3 million between 2003 and 2004, and the number without such coverage rose by 800,000 to 45.8 million.

The health care industry can't save that kind of money without revamping all the unnecessary, costly, tests that doctors order. It's also about inventory waste, and paper record-keeping.

We all know the rants; the conservatives don't want government control over our health care no matter how much waste is currently in the system. The liberals want to ensure over 30-million more without increasing the supply; how does one do that? Most hospitals will tell you they're already stretched to the max, and losing money.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

Quote:

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2003 and 2004 at $44,389, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004. The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004. The number of people with health insurance increased by 2.0 million to 245.3 million between 2003 and 2004, and the number without such coverage rose by 800,000 to 45.8 million.

So, as of 2004, there were 84% with insurance. We can achieve 94%, and it only costs 849 billion. What a bargain.

Paid for with cuts to Medicare, of course. Medicare cuts are looking like something between 350 billion and 500 billion, and this is all going to cut the deficit by 127 billion. I'm gonna go get religion. This is a miracle.

Is this about reading it on the floor of the Senate? The only virtue there would be to keep them out of trouble for a few days.