Health Care

[Fool]

The CBO is already out with their review of it? Snowe just asked for a formal review the day he unveiled it. When was that? Monday or tuesday?

It appears that the CBO comments are on his latest bill, but just making sure.

The CBO review:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc...C_Chairman.pdf

Report on it
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009...iews_with.html

It's going to take a while for people to make their way through the details of the Baucus health bill. We've only scratched the surface ourselves. But the most important review--the price tag calculated by the Congressional Budget Office--is already in.

Yesterday afternoon the CBO bean counters tallied up the numbers in the Baucus proposal and worked a little arithmetical magic to put the cost at $774 billion over 10 years, 9.6 percent less than the Montana senator's own estimate of $856 billion.
Who's right? "CBO is the official scorekeeper for Congress, so what it says pretty much goes," NPR's health-policy guru Julie Rovner notes. Still, the Finance Committee fired off a memo late yesterday, saying both numbers are right, with an explanation of the differences here.
Oh, one other thing, the CBO says the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit by $49 billion over 10 years, supporting his claim that the plan wouldn't add a dime to the nation's debts. Of course, the proposal is a long way from becoming a law, and the estimates, as the CBO notes, are "subject to substantial uncertainty."
Still, Baucus made good on his goal of bringing in a bill that would cost a lot less than other proposals, though that wasn't enough to garner any support from Republicans at its debut.
A cheaper bill would make the individual insurance mandate for many Americans more costly, though. Remember, Baucus would make people buy coverage, or pay a penalty, if they don't get insurance through their jobs or from the government. Subsidies would be available for some. For whom and in what amounts have a lot to do with how much health overhaul would cost.
As Kaiser Health News' Jordan Rau writes, House Democrats would subsidize insurance purchases for individuals making up to $43,320 a year and families of four bringing in as much as $88,200 a year. But Baucus's bill would cap subsidy eligibility at $32,490 for individuals and $66,150 for a family of four.

[Tahoe]

The Baucus plan will not have Republican support (not that BO needs it) because it has the co-op that peeps say will turn into good ol Gov't run health care. Not sure about though.

[geerussell]

The message of course being that republicans aren't serious about governing.

[UxKa]

A: I still don't get where you come up with gov run health care. They are just going to provide an option for people who want it.

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.

What is your solution Tahoe? All you do is bitch about 'govt run health care' even though that's not even accurate. Do you really want things to just stay the same?

[geerussell]

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.

The alternative, fee-for-service, where people paid directly the same as they do for lawyers or any other professional service used to be the norm. That worked pretty well, back in the day when sulfur and iodine were state of the art pharmaceuticals and the most complex instrument at the hospital was a stethoscope.

Even if every penny of waste, fraud and abuse were wrung out of the system, major medical events would still cost as much as a house or a car--which by coincidence also happen to be things we carry insurance on in case the unexpected happens.

[Tahoe]

A: I still don't get where you come up with gov run health care. They are just going to provide an option for people who want it.

If you don't get it, I can't help you. And the 2nd sentence...keep drinking that kool-aid.

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.

Help!

What is your solution Tahoe? All you do is bitch about 'govt run health care' even though that's not even accurate.

Bitch? I'm voicing my opposition to Gov't run Health Care. Sorry to offend your messiah by not agreeing with him. You should take your 2nd leader's advice (Nanci)and lower your tone.


Do you really want things to just stay the same?

As opposed to the annointed one's plan? Yes. And I'm not in the minority there. If you can pull yourself away from MSNBC, you might know that.

[Fool]

Don't paint everyone with the same brush or anything.

[UxKa]

To #25: Obviously I realize insurance is great for when the major medical issue comes up. I was just saying it could be a much better system than it is. I know 2 people who were uninsured and had medical issues come up. Both filed for bankruptcy. That is why I have insurance, but that's not to say that they don't skim unneeded billions off the top.

To #26: Messiah and Nanci? Get a grip man. It's shit like that that makes it so hard to respect the political poop that comes out of your mouth. Next time try providing a real counterargument or at least, as Fool said, not painting everyone with the same broad brush. I didn't vote for Obama, and there are Repubs that I do like.

I think it's rediculous that having insurance for my perfectly healthy kid before he was 1 year old cost me half my paycheck after my company paid half of the insurance. It's shit like that that makes me say there are better ways for the system to operate than it does. I've known a lot of couples where one spouse literally works to pay the insurance for a kid or two. Shit is just stupid.

[Tahoe]

To #25: Obviously I realize insurance is great for when the major medical issue comes up. I was just saying it could be a much better system than it is. I know 2 people who were uninsured and had medical issues come up. Both filed for bankruptcy. That is why I have insurance, but that's not to say that they don't skim unneeded billions off the top.

To #26: Messiah and Nanci? Get a grip man. It's shit like that that makes it so hard to respect the political poop that comes out of your mouth. Next time try providing a real counterargument or at least, as Fool said, not painting everyone with the same broad brush. I didn't vote for Obama, and there are Repubs that I do like.

I think it's rediculous that having insurance for my perfectly healthy kid before he was 1 year old cost me half my paycheck after my company paid half of the insurance. It's shit like that that makes me say there are better ways for the system to operate than it does. I've known a lot of couples where one spouse literally works to pay the insurance for a kid or two. Shit is just stupid.

So you'll be here to back me up when peeps say I just spout Rush stuff, right? You'll tell those posters...

"It's shit like that that makes it so hard to respect the political poop that comes out of your mouth or not painting everyone with the same broad brush"

[DE]

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.

In Spain, which is a good system, not the best out there, but one where the public health system doesn't get the credit it deserves for the good things it does, many doctors still make their money in the private sector. They work for the health care system and get paid for that but they also have their private patients for the big money.