Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

House Democrats' desired health bill would cost $871 billion

By Lori Montgomery
House leaders have cut the cost of their health-care overhaul to around $871 billion over the next decade, Democratic sources said Tuesday night, and were working to line up votes for the package with the aim of bringing it before the full House early next month.

The $871 billion estimate -- well under the $900 billion limit set by President Obama -- is the latest of several versions scored by congressional budget analysts, according to a Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks. The measure would include a government-run insurance plan that pays providers at rates tied to Medicare, the aide added. That so-called "robust" public option is preferred by liberals because it would save the government money and could force private insurers to lower their own reimbursement rates, driving down the cost of health care overall.

But the idea is opposed by many conservative Democrats from rural areas, where Medicare rates are well below the national average. A new insurance plan that paid such low rates would be devastating to their communities financially, these Democrats say. Instead, they argue that any public plan should negotiate rates directly with providers, as private plans do.

Late Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pressed lawmakers to support the plan tied to Medicare, arguing that it would give the House a stronger position going into negotiations with the more conservative Senate, according to one participant in the meeting. House leaders count around 200 votes for a public plan tied to Medicare, Democratic sources said -- within striking distance of the 218 votes they need to push a package through the House.

"We're reaching critical mass to bring the votes together," said Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the House leadership.

Pelosi asked Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) to call every House Democrat on Wednesday to determine where they stand, and told Democrats that she would call another caucus meeting -- perhaps as soon as Wednesday night -- before making a final decision, the participant said. But Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), whose panel is charged with blending the package that emerged in July from three separate House committees, said momentum is building behind a plan tied to Medicare rates.

"Right at this point, I would say we're heading in that direction," Slaughter said.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog caucus, said the development puts pressure on some of her members, despite their unwillingness to vote against the president's premier domestic initiative.

"A number of Blue Dogs would have a hard time accepting a public option with Medicare rates," Herseth Sandlin said.

The shape of the public option is one of the final issues left to be resolved in the House, Democrats said, adding that abortion also remains a major outstanding issue.

By Lori Montgomery  |  October 21, 2009; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Health Reform , House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reid's summer fundraising taps Democrats and Republicans
Next: Today on the Hill

Comments

Quite encouraging.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | October 21, 2009 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Let's stop playing games about the bill for health care reform. No one knows how much it will be -- we do know it is always much more than expected.

Posted by: ravitchn | October 21, 2009 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Kinda like cutting a car payment from $730 a month to 710. BFD - big deal.

Posted by: birvin9999 | October 21, 2009 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Yes its true...
But whats the catch? Oh there is a VERY LARGE CATCH!

First this will be at the expense of employers and others paying for regular healthcare. The extra options will be a huge tax on all that are paying for insurance.

This would in fact force many employers and people to steer to the public option which ( in the CBO's only very best estimate) wont go over budget.

So in essence, this still is a socialist idea the brings down everyone else, makes it devastatingly expensive to get premium service, to provide a smaller, less able, public option.

While those like Germany, are trying to get out of that hole, the Democrats and Obama are trying to push everyone into it.

And as well this does NOT include the 250 billion promise to pay off Medicare promise not to make more cuts.

So trickery of books, and dumbing down the rest of medical services to provide a poor "public option" - is what the bill should truly be called.

Posted by: jabberwolff | October 21, 2009 7:09 AM | Report abuse

First of all, why are we accepting that $900 billion is acceptable. That is where the fallacy begins. These bill are for something we don't need, we don't want and we can't afford. Reform the tort laws, health care spending accounts, health insurance should only be for major medical problems not for runny noses or a sore throat. So many ways to attack the real problem of cost instead of trying to cover everyone and spend our way into oblivion.

Posted by: HonkersDD | October 21, 2009 7:16 AM | Report abuse

These numbers are pure fantasy. The Dems are trying to pass this crap before 2010 when the voters will speak and their overwhelming majority will be gone.

Posted by: sparad | October 21, 2009 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12.

hardly anyone wants this health care reform. Just fix what we have which has been proven to be the best in the World.
85% are covered and happy. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | October 21, 2009 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Under the new Healthcare bill, right wing bellyaching, greed bone injuries, splinters from teabag protest signs, and post-relevance depression will not be covered.
Special considerations will of course be made for the millions of righties who will eagerly jump in feet first to take advantage of the benefits that Democrats worked so hard to get them.
Those people will still fight tooth and nail to prevent any advancement into the 21st Century, but as in this situation, we'll let them ride along anyway.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 7:45 AM | Report abuse

These numbers simply cannot be right. They are off by at least a factor or 2-3 which means the actual initial START UP cost has to be more like 2-3 trillion. AT some point like the S&L, bank, stock market and mortgage bombs the taxpayer gets to pay for all of this. At least the day of reconking comes at the 2010 elections and the Congress and the White House will not be able to hide.
Again the America people should have the EXACT same health-dental plans, coverage and costs that ALL members of congress and their families receive courtesy of the US taxpayer.

Posted by: KBlit | October 21, 2009 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Cuts? What cuts? There's going to be a massive spending increase and a massive tax increase to go with it, not to mention cuts in services.

What the truth is that the triumverate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid are trying to push pinko-socialist-Commie nationalized health care. Don't need it, don't want it. These jerks are just trying to take advantage of the fact that the American public got scared last fall and are trying to do what they've never been able to do.

Here's the 411 for you losers. The counter-offensive has begun. The Republican Party is fighting back, and McDonnel WILL be the next Republican Gov. of VA. Come one year from now, we are booting Ms. Nancy from speaker's position. Hairy Reid will be next, then 2 years hence we are giving Obozo the boot.

Who knows? If we hit the jackpot in the mid-term elections we might have a Republican House and Senate, and we just might find some reason to impeach Obozo and since his hide back to Chicago or Hawaii or Indonesia or Kenya or wherever the flip it is he is from. We don't need him and his commie and pervert "czars" running the country.

Let's take our country back from this radical left wing pinko socialist Maoist Commie.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | October 21, 2009 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Only Democrats will vote for Democrats in these upcoming elections, so you had better pass health care reform, public option included. Do the right thing and hope that the one or two conservatives who helped send you to Congress see you man-up for the country.

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | October 21, 2009 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Wash Post wrote: " is the latest of several versions scored by congressional budget analysts, according to a Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks."

Why are these "private" talks? What about the transparency and debate. More liberal extremist agenda being driven from behind closed doors.

It almost humurous that these idiots think they are successfull by only causing us to go into debt a meager 871,000,000,000.00. The last I heard we were already 1.4 Trillion in debt, and they are looking at passing another $871,000,000,000.00 and have also talked of another socialist spending "so called" stimulus package that I'm sure will also be close to $800,000,000,000.00 +.

STOP SPENDING THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY!

You fools in D.C. need to work on making programs like Social Security solvent and lowering our debt and deficits, before more unresponsible unbridled spending initiatives that will kill our nation.

Blue Dogs. Any spending on ANY NEW PROGRAM of the fringe finatic liberal agenda, is irresponsible, let alone another $871,000,000,000.00 (that's BILLION). This is not the time to vote on party lines. This is the times to stand up and vote like the people you claim to be. Fiscally Responsible moderate Democrats.

Prove you are a Blue Dog, VOTE AGAINST THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING AGENDAS. Thank you.

Posted by: ignoranceisbliss | October 21, 2009 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Let us put an end to this Washington nonsense and public gullibility. The fact that cannot be ignored is that the rest of the developed world has better health care at about half the cost

The American health care system is broken and cannot be fixed with patches. The purpose of a health care system is to improve the health of people and not to enrich corporations or provide jobs for people who make no contribution to improving health.

The only sensible option is some kind of single payer system. In the American tradition, our goal should be to create a single payer system that is better than anybody else's.

Posted by: Desertstraw | October 21, 2009 8:03 AM | Report abuse

We need this health care reform.

Do not listen to the white noise coming from the lobbyist payed commentors who are saying this will raise taxes. They don't seem to understand that costs will be much higher if we do nothing.

The insurance companies are raising their prices as we speak so that they can keep spending MILLIONS of dollars every day to lobby against this reform.

Insurance companies are spending YOUR money so that they can guarantee that you have to keep paying them too much.

There is no reason why health care should cost as much as it does. Look at every other country in the world. They all pay at least HALF as much as a we do, and they have longer life spans and better health overall.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Saying the democrat's cut the health bill is like being grateful a mass murderer only killed 50 of 100 in a crowd. The sheer order of magnitude of this horrendous affront to freedom and the private sector cannot be understated. These idiots, who know nothing about running a business, are meddling in an area that touches everyone. Based on their history and track record, they offer greater risks and higher costs to us all.

Posted by: schratboy | October 21, 2009 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Wash Post wrote: " is the latest of several versions scored by congressional budget analysts, according to a Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks."

Why are these "private" talks? What about the transparency and debate. More liberal extremist agenda being driven from behind closed doors.

It almost humurous that these idiots think they are successfull by only causing us to go into debt a meager 871,000,000,000.00. The last I heard we were already 1.4 Trillion in debt, and they are looking at passing another $871,000,000,000.00 and have also talked of another socialist spending "so called" stimulus package that I'm sure will also be close to $800,000,000,000.00 +.

STOP SPENDING THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY!

You fools in D.C. need to work on making programs like Social Security solvent and lowering our debt and deficits, before more unresponsible unbridled spending initiatives that will kill our nation.

Blue Dogs. Any spending on ANY NEW PROGRAM of the fringe finatic liberal agenda, is irresponsible, let alone another $871,000,000,000.00 (that's BILLION). This is not the time to vote on party lines. This is the times to stand up and vote like the people you claim to be. Fiscally Responsible moderate Democrats.

Prove you are a Blue Dog, VOTE AGAINST THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING AGENDAS. Thank you.
_____________________
YOU ARE THE FOOL WHO DOESN'T REALIZE THAT THIS REFORM WILL SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY. IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE YOU TWIT.

IF YOU WANT TO SAVE TAX PAYER MONEY, THEN YOU BETTER BE FOR THIS REFORM, BECAUSE WE WILL SPEND MORE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IF WE DO NOT GET A PUBLIC OPTION.

"That so-called "robust" public option is preferred by liberals because it would save the government money and could force private insurers to lower their own reimbursement rates, driving down the cost of health care overall."

SHAME ON YOU FOR RANTING LIKE A BABY WITHOUT KNOWING THE TRUTH.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Saying the democrat's cut the health bill is like being grateful a mass murderer only killed 50 of 100 in a crowd. The sheer order of magnitude of this horrendous affront to freedom and the private sector cannot be understated. These idiots, who know nothing about running a business, are meddling in an area that touches everyone. Based on their history and track record, they offer greater risks and higher costs to us all.

Posted by: schratboy | October 21, 2009 8:07 AM
-----------
I would rather have the government run my care, because I can vote for who is in government.

I can't vote for who runs private insurance. So when private insurance raises their prices so the CEO can buy a house, I can't fire him.

I can "fire" the representative in government though.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:10 AM | Report abuse

These numbers simply cannot be right. They are off by at least a factor or 2-3 which means the actual initial START UP cost has to be more like 2-3 trillion. AT some point like the S&L, bank, stock market and mortgage bombs the taxpayer gets to pay for all of this. At least the day of reconking comes at the 2010 elections and the Congress and the White House will not be able to hide.
Again the America people should have the EXACT same health-dental plans, coverage and costs that ALL members of congress and their families receive courtesy of the US taxpayer.

Posted by: KBlit | October 21, 2009 7:47 AM
---------------
You can't simply makes stuff up and expect anyone with intelligence to believe you.

You are acting like a terrorist.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Who's kidding whom? The are making it sound like this is such a deal! I don't care whether it's 900 billion, 800 billion, or 1 trillion - it's too much, we can't afford it, and we don't need to spend anywhere near that to provide affordable health care to those who are really in need.
I want to see that actually bill - because I don't trust any of these charlatons who are waging back room deals in cobbling this disaster together.

Posted by: sandynh | October 21, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12.

hardly anyone wants this health care reform. Just fix what we have which has been proven to be the best in the World.
85% are covered and happy. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | October 21, 2009 7:29 AM
------------
There are at least 5 polls that show the opposite of that poll.

Please show me ONE more poll that says that people overwhelmingly oppose Obama. I bet you can't.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Over a trillion. Why?

1. The Senate pushed back the most expensive parts of the bill past 2013.

2. Congress has chosen to separate $243.00 million from the actual cost of the bill as a separet expenditure to pay doctors for Medicare.

3. Congress has yet to make a 20% cut in Medicare.

4. The Senate r the Congress has yet to provide anyone (including) GAO with enough information to be able to gauge the true expense of the bill.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Who's kidding whom? The are making it sound like this is such a deal! I don't care whether it's 900 billion, 800 billion, or 1 trillion - it's too much, we can't afford it, and we don't need to spend anywhere near that to provide affordable health care to those who are really in need.
I want to see that actually bill - because I don't trust any of these charlatons who are waging back room deals in cobbling this disaster together.

Posted by: sandynh | October 21, 2009 8:13 AM
----------------
It is going to cost more if we do nothing. Why can't you get that through your skull?

If your are interested in saving money, then get your head out of your a$$, because you are supporting the expensive side of this debate, the side that does nothing.

And if you want to see the bill, stop being lazy and search for it. Every bill that has been released from it's committee is online to view.

Lazy and ignorant is no way to live your life.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:16 AM | Report abuse

And now we need to reduce war spending. Or better, end the war by proposing a "War Tax".

Posted by: Maddogg | October 21, 2009 8:17 AM | Report abuse

CBO says that DEMS health care reform with PUBLIC OPTION will REDUCE the DEFICIT!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/

So all you people whining about taxes better jump ship, otherwise you will all look like liars.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Over a trillion. Why?

1. The Senate pushed back the most expensive parts of the bill past 2013.

2. Congress has chosen to separate $243.00 million from the actual cost of the bill as a separet expenditure to pay doctors for Medicare.

3. Congress has yet to make a 20% cut in Medicare.

4. The Senate r the Congress has yet to provide anyone (including) GAO with enough information to be able to gauge the true expense of the bill.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

--------------

The CBO announced that this bill will BE CHEAPER THEN DOING NOTHING:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/

You want cheaper taxes? Support the bill.

You want to pay more for taxes? Support the insurance lobbyists and republicans.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Over a trillion. Why?

1. The Senate pushed back the most expensive parts of the bill past 2013.

2. Congress has chosen to separate $243.00 million from the actual cost of the bill as a separet expenditure to pay doctors for Medicare.

3. Congress has yet to make a 20% cut in Medicare.

4. The Senate r the Congress has yet to provide anyone (including) GAO with enough information to be able to gauge the true expense of the bill.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

--------------

The CBO announced that this bill will BE CHEAPER THEN DOING NOTHING:

+++++++++++++++++++++
Ask anyone who's numbers they put more faith in, CBO or GAO? It isn't the CBO, I can assure you.

Your taxes will have to go up eventually to pay for Medicare. They will also eventually have to go up to pay for this bill...you don't get anything for free.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Over a trillion. Why?

1. The Senate pushed back the most expensive parts of the bill past 2013.

2. Congress has chosen to separate $243.00 million from the actual cost of the bill as a separet expenditure to pay doctors for Medicare.

3. Congress has yet to make a 20% cut in Medicare.

4. The Senate r the Congress has yet to provide anyone (including) GAO with enough information to be able to gauge the true expense of the bill.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

--------------

The CBO announced that this bill will BE CHEAPER THEN DOING NOTHING:

+++++++++++++++++++++
Ask anyone who's numbers they put more faith in, CBO or GAO? It isn't the CBO, I can assure you.

Your taxes will have to go up eventually to pay for Medicare. They will also eventually have to go up to pay for this bill...you don't get anything for free.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:23 AM
-----------------
When the CBO said it would cost more last week all of the republicans were quoting them. Now that the numbers are against you they are wrong?

Classic hypocrisy.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:37 AM | Report abuse

So many economic experts commenting here ("...off by at least a factor or 2-3..."? What does that even mean, and what secret info do you have that highly paid experts with actual degrees in this stuff don't? You have NO IDEA what the "start up" costs will be, and only you believe otherwise.)...where were you all when the economy was in danger? Cheating on your taxes and tossing cigarette butts out your SUV's window, I'd wager.
That, and believing that a Rasmussen Report is anything but right wing propaganda. Spare me results from a poll by right wingers, for right wingers, and participated in by no one but right wingers. You should be terrified that 28% of hardcore righties like Obama, but please stop pretending it's a respectable place to get relelvant information, charlietuna666. Your assertions are pure fantasy, and deluding yourself with cooked numbers will only hurt you all the more when you smash facefirst into reality. You and KBlit, etc., live in the greatest country in the world, so stop whining and PAY YOUR TAXES. Freedom ain't free, and your constant bleating about taxes sounds just like CEOs crying about regulation as they cash super-fat bonus checks.
You live in a nation where malaria DOESN'T kill 2 in 5 children before age two, where every child has a shot at an education, where every citizen is free to pursue what they will, where we don't (yet) have to wear a filter mask just to go to the corner store (Bejing, anyone?), and local despots don't burn your house down if you don't give up your daughter to them. And it ain't free, freeloaders.
Without taxes: No roads, no schools, no firefighters, EMTs, police, garbage collection, libraries, national defense...I could of course, go on for days.
Pay your taxes, deadbeats, or move to Iran. Your ignorant propagandizing and scare tactics would probably garner you a high rank in the regime there. Your "revolution" will not come in 2010, and you're really in for a nasty bruise when 2012 ends with the re-election of a president who pronounces 'nuclear' correctly. Sarah who?
Look out, here it comes...

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Yeah yeah sure sure, whatever BS $ number you want to put on it today.

Posted by: affirmativeactionpresident | October 21, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Be still my heart only 870B.
WOW what a victory.

Just think if you gave the american people that money to spend as they wish!!!

Posted by: tgalysh1 | October 21, 2009 8:48 AM | Report abuse


Over a trillion. Why?

1. The Senate pushed back the most expensive parts of the bill past 2013.

2. Congress has chosen to separate $243.00 million from the actual cost of the bill as a separet expenditure to pay doctors for Medicare.

3. Congress has yet to make a 20% cut in Medicare.

4. The Senate r the Congress has yet to provide anyone (including) GAO with enough information to be able to gauge the true expense of the bill.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

--------------

The CBO announced that this bill will BE CHEAPER THEN DOING NOTHING:

+++++++++++++++++++++
Ask anyone who's numbers they put more faith in, CBO or GAO? It isn't the CBO, I can assure you.

Your taxes will have to go up eventually to pay for Medicare. They will also eventually have to go up to pay for this bill...you don't get anything for free.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:23 AM
-----------------
When the CBO said it would cost more last week all of the republicans were quoting them. Now that the numbers are against you they are wrong?

Classic hypocrisy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the Republicans want to quote CBO numbers that's their perogative, but those interested in the most objective estimate you can get go with GAO. They were honest enough in their assesment to note that it is impossbile to really know how much any bill will truly cost.

1. Medicare has yet to be payed for.

2. The Drug option has yet to be payed for.

3. The Health Care bill currently in the Congress ans Senate won't be payed for, regardless of pie in the sky estimates of saving.

These programs cost and grow in expense as time goes on. It is time for the Congress, Senate, and Presdient to be honest with the American people, and stop playing with numbers so they can pass legislation.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I would rather have the government run my care, because I can vote for who is in government.

I can't vote for who runs private insurance. So when private insurance raises their prices so the CEO can buy a house, I can't fire him.

__________________________

Brilliant statement! Gold star for you, Indy...

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

How about listening to the people?? No Public Option!!

Posted by: CayC | October 21, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

This bill, like the stimulus, will have big blue letters on the side exclaiming DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATION. Like the stimulus, the Democrats and Obama can't scapegoat Olympia Snowe and few Republiconz or Blue Wongs for failure.

A strong public option is expected and a strong public option that serves as a viable and valued option to the current private-sector for-profit full-fledged profit machines.

But the Democrats and Obama are close to getting cold feet and everyone understand the results, if they do. From the Economist magazine October 17 issue: “By 2019, 25,000,000 people are expected to remain uninsured [under the Senate Plan]”

Just as the conservative Economist magazine sees the situation, so do voters. Both are aware of the 'negotiations' and their likely outcome. The Economist continues: “Mr Obama and his Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill are in grave danger of throwing away a rare chance.”

And the title of the Oct 17 2009 article reiterates the point: “Barack Obama’s Reforms Should Avoid Squandering a Rare Opportunity, But Probably Won’t”.

From a voter's point of view, if the Democrats squander their opportunity, it will cost them the coming election, not for being too bold, but for frittering away their majorities on a half-*ssed bill.

Yes, waiting is difficult, but, as the Economist magazine cautions, opening a bill and finding it largely empty will be a disaster for Obama and the Democrats and for America.

Posted by: theworm1 | October 21, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure they'll call it a tax break because they're only taxing us, say.$700 Billion, vs. $891 billion (though final numbers will never be tallied).

Posted by: jahoby | October 21, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse


Over a trillion. Why?

1. The Senate pushed back the most expensive parts of the bill past 2013.

2. Congress has chosen to separate $243.00 million from the actual cost of the bill as a separet expenditure to pay doctors for Medicare.

3. Congress has yet to make a 20% cut in Medicare.

4. The Senate r the Congress has yet to provide anyone (including) GAO with enough information to be able to gauge the true expense of the bill.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

--------------

The CBO announced that this bill will BE CHEAPER THEN DOING NOTHING:

+++++++++++++++++++++
Ask anyone who's numbers they put more faith in, CBO or GAO? It isn't the CBO, I can assure you.

Your taxes will have to go up eventually to pay for Medicare. They will also eventually have to go up to pay for this bill...you don't get anything for free.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:23 AM
-----------------
When the CBO said it would cost more last week all of the republicans were quoting them. Now that the numbers are against you they are wrong?

Classic hypocrisy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the Republicans want to quote CBO numbers that's their perogative, but those interested in the most objective estimate you can get go with GAO. They were honest enough in their assesment to note that it is impossbile to really know how much any bill will truly cost.

1. Medicare has yet to be payed for.

2. The Drug option has yet to be payed for.

3. The Health Care bill currently in the Congress ans Senate won't be payed for, regardless of pie in the sky estimates of saving.

These programs cost and grow in expense as time goes on. It is time for the Congress, Senate, and Presdient to be honest with the American people, and stop playing with numbers so they can pass legislation.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 21, 2009 8:49 AM |
---------------
You are right. these programs "cost and grow in expense."

But they are less expensive then the "cost and grow(th)" of doing nothing.

So cry all you want, but you better not cost me more money because you are afraid of change.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

How about listening to the people?? No Public Option!!

Posted by: CayC | October 21, 2009 8:56 AM
------------
For every person like you there are two people yelling "Public option now."

Our government is listening to them.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse


Change is hard, especially when it is being pushed by a progressive pragmatist like President Barack Obama. Change is hard when people have become comfortable with the status quo. Change is hard when people refuse to challenge themselves to overcome complacency. Change is hard when our congressional leaders put their own selfish interests ahead of their constituents. They are afraid to challenge the mega pharmaceutical, insurance, and HMOs corporations, for fear of loosing precious campaign contributions that will keep them in their jobs. Most of these politicians, both democrat and republican, are wealthier than their average constituents, and want to remain so, by helping these corporations maintain their stranglehold and monopolize the healthcare debate. The average American, given the unvarnished truth, wants the healthcare system fixed, to their advantage, not to the advantage of the major pharmaceutical and insurance companies. The PEOPLE OF AMERICA, must rise up and let their voices be heard over the din of the big money lobbyists, who want to maintain their largess for their corporate benefactors.

Posted by: demtse | October 21, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse


Change is hard, especially when it is being pushed by a progressive pragmatist like President Barack Obama. Change is hard when people have become comfortable with the status quo. Change is hard when people refuse to challenge themselves to overcome complacency. Change is hard when our congressional leaders put their own selfish interests ahead of their constituents. They are afraid to challenge the mega pharmaceutical, insurance, and HMOs corporations, for fear of loosing precious campaign contributions that will keep them in their jobs. Most of these politicians, both democrat and republican, are wealthier than their average constituents, and want to remain so, by helping these corporations maintain their stranglehold and monopolize the healthcare debate. The average American, given the unvarnished truth, wants the healthcare system fixed, to their advantage, not to the advantage of the major pharmaceutical and insurance companies. The PEOPLE OF AMERICA, must rise up and let their voices be heard over the din of the big money lobbyists, who want to maintain their largess for their corporate benefactors.

Posted by: demtse | October 21, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

If the wars can be free, then so can universal health care.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 21, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

A TRILLION MORE _ WHEN DOES IT STOP?

sad that the fewer and fewer who pay taxes have to add to their burdens - yet, we see over 12 million illegals draining more money and resources.... with the govt allowing laws ro be broken

CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST

Posted by: barbiek1 | October 21, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

How about listening to the people?? No Public Option!!

Posted by: CayC | October 21, 2009 8:56 AM
----------------------
CayC,
The People are being listened to. Every day, more and more of them are proving we aren't such a dumb country after all, and we are capable of seeing through propaganda repeated endlessly by those who profit from our misery. It is indeed time for the will of the people to be done...
Public Option Now.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

There is a dire shortage of nurses in this country. Take a look at any newspapers or websites want ads for proof. This is due to the fact that they are grossly underpaid considering their levels of education, liability, responsibility, combined with the BS they have to deal with from physicians, hospital administration, patients, and family members.

The only thing this option (which is based on the abysmal medicare reimbursement rates) will do is lump physicians in the same boat. Once word gets out that there is no money in health care watch the ranks of medical school applicants and ultimately physicians in the field dry up resulting in the same shortage we now see with nurses. Another job well done by Obozzo and his gaggle of tax cheating Czars.

This is just another case of "who cares about the facts as long as you get something else for free" BS dimoCRAPS enslave their mindless lazy constituents with.

With 22 years in the health care industry, I just can't wait for you ignorant, freebie seeking, feeble minded, lib--turd, imbeciles to tell me I'm wrong.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 21, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

To all my liberal friends who seem bound and determine to see this legislation pass, and it likely will, may I suggest Congress add a provision that ties their retirement pension to the effectiveness of the bill to meet the original goals laid forth by the President: 1. Lower health insurance and services costs to at least the rate of inflation, 2. insure ALL U.S. citizens, 3. Not fund abortions, 4. Not provide insurance coverage for illegal aliens, 5. provide more competition and choice, and 6. allow me to keep the insurance, doctors and coverage I have in place now--regardless what my employer decides to do as result of how this legislation impacts them. If this bill meets this standard--great, let's run with it! And let us also ask for one additional provision--that if the bill fails in any two of these goals within a 60 month period, the whole thing is thrown out and we go back to our current system. At some point, dear liberal friends, you must accept that while you are willing to abdicate personal responsibility--yes, government is always eager to step in and do for you what you are not willing to do for yourself, government can never accept accountability--that remains with you and me, as will the price tag associated with this. After all is said and done, if you end up having a bad experience with your government run healthcare program, no government official, bureaucrat, or department employee will stand up and say, "We were wrong!" What they will say is, "We need to throw more of your money at the problem--we're on the right track, we just haven't had the resources needed to really do it correctly!" And that, I'm afraid, is the real bottom line here!

Posted by: Marktlv | October 21, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Health insurance reform is only fair to insurance companies - and those whose campaigns they fund. You know, "our" representatives who have allowed cruel abuses for decades. NO costly, convoluted insurance reform will suffice. SINGLE PAYER will MORE THAN PAY FOR ITSELF by eliminating administrative costs (the claims denial department), executive salaries and bonuses, lobbying, duplication of services, and campaign contributions from OUR health care dollar. "Our" representatives rushed through those OUTRAGEOUS CORPORATE BAILOUTS so they could say "GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG! WE CANNOT AFFORD NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!" Bogus!

Posted by: Too2much | October 21, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

So these A hole liberal democrats say it's under a trillion and we're supposed to be happy?

Won't be long before the insurrection starts.

These leftist idiots are destroying our country and the usual class envy nitwits aren't intelligent enough to realize what is happening.

What dolts.

Posted by: LarryG62 | October 21, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Congress who?
They are talking again?
Gee what for?
Apparently, the people are not interested in anymore from this Congress at all what-so-ever.
They were told no on the bailouts and stimulous but to ego filled to listen.
Taxation without representation is not the Will of the people.
TEA PARTY REVOLT makes that crystal clear.

Apparently, the only activity happening regarding the Fed 2009 is NO Confidence, and this:

BEAR REVOLT was started by Veterans ( Czar nick named terrorists) seeking to empower the active troops with a clear documentation of the majority's will of the people via petitions (signatured by all men, women, and children who have No Confidence this 2009 Federal Government). The signed petitions are being entered into County recordations offices as a "recorded document", then pooled and placed as a" Document" into the Library of Congress by the people of each State.
The well documented majority with " no confidence" can allow the defenders of the US Constitution the ability to carry out the "will of the majority", and allow an emergency election to void all signatures of the current Fed 2009..
This Redress call was named when Pelosi went to THE BEAR REPUBLIC of California , threw imported ACORNS at their heads,
then called them astroturf and walked on their backs with her spikey heels out the door absolutely refusing to listen to them saying NO.

PETITION:

The REDRESS of the 2009 Federal Government of the United States of America
For NO CONFIDENCE
By the recall of :
The Congress, (all names listed both Partys)
The Hill , ( all names listed both Partys)
The Cabinet, (all names listed)
The Czars, ( all names listed)
Barack Hussein Obama ( all "currently" known names listed: Barack Hussein Soroeto, Barack Hussein Dunham )


Posted by: dottydo | October 21, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

The real deficit buster for healthcare expenditures is a Single-Payer system established to replace our current health insurance system. We have evidence that a Single-Payer health insurance system is cheaper and more cost-efficient than any market based or mixed system of health insurance. Just look at the United Kingdom for the evidence. The United Kingdom has a single payer healthcare system and has the lowest per capita healthcare costs of any industrialized country. This is due to the fact the British National Health Service is socialized and has achieved economies of scale, is orientated toward disease prevention and wellness as opposed to disease management and has a larger pool of users and fiscal supporters which make the system self-sustaining. Furthermore, administrative costs are 2-3%, whereas, the U.S. healthcare administrative costs are 30%. A single payer system has one proceedure for processing medical claims. This reduces administrative costs. Everyone there pays his/her fair share of the costs and is heavily invested in the system. Everyone in, Nobody Out!!

Posted by: abishop2 | October 21, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Has the CBO factored in the cost of adding 10 - 20 million illegal aliens next year? Pres. Obama is on record as wanting to push for "legal status" for those residing in the U.S. as his next big initiative. What will that do to the spending curve?

Posted by: jocada | October 21, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

This is just so much blather. With all the assumptions built into the analysis over a ten year period, who knows what this will cost? Who can believe that any of this is (1) Valid or (2) Won't go the way of most government entitlement programs -- incremental cost creep until it is too big to change or undo.

The agenda here is not health care, it is social. The Democrats want to get a foundation put in place which will put Congress in substantial control of another 17% of the economy. How they can manipulate their agenda by manipulating reimbursements, taxes, fees, and what is "affordable" as a lever to squash private choice is mind-boggling.

Responsible leadership sometimes should take incremental steps to determine empirically what works and what doesn't. When you're dealing with this much impact in this much uncertainty, any other path is just irresponsible.

If you can save $400B in Medicare -- prove it by doing it. "Hope is not a strategy."

Fix health care. But, do it in the national interest, not your party's ideological imperatives.

Posted by: DOps | October 21, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what people are talking about it doesn't need to be fixed???? I have what would be considered premium coverage through work--yet its the WORST coverage I've ever had. I have the highest co-payments ever, the highest deductibles, the least procedures covered, and the poorest selection of providers (unless I go out of network and pay even more). We are a large company that pays most of the $300+ monthly premiums, but yet our coverage is CRAP!! WHY??? Because the insurance industry can write their own checks. The healthcare industry is EXEMPT from anti-trust laws, and they've used it to become one of the few that has prospered in this recession. While the Republicans watched since 1996, the quality of my healthcare has PLUMMETED. Thank God the Democrats are at least trying to do something about it, while the Republicans AGAIN sit at the side and try to STOP anything that might hurt their big-business donors' bottom lines.

Posted by: ttunner | October 21, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I wondered how long it would take Dottydo and he cut and paste revolt to show up...Crybabies of Ignorance, arise and be laughed at! Tinfoil hats all around.

Oh, and Bcamp55, you are wrong, dolt. Do you have any idea how many doctors dedicate years of their lives to getting into medicine? No, you don't, fool, because most of the one's I know don't give a damn about the money...which is why they are real Americans who would save your unworthy hide just because it's the right thing to do.
I know, weird, isn't it? But selflessness is just a facade for the Right, not an actual way to live your life. Lucky for you we're not all selfish deadbeats like you. And Dottydon't, the girl who can't do anything but re-re-re-re-re-re-paste the same stupid blather over and over and over....

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Independent4tw,
I would rather have the government run my care, because I can vote for who is in government.

I can't vote for who runs private insurance. So when private insurance raises their prices so the CEO can buy a house, I can't fire him.


I can "fire" the representative in government though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

TEA PARTY REVOLT refusal to earn a dime to tax for Obamaland and Bear Revolt is on, so it looks like this Fed 2009 is fired now, doesn't it?


By the way, in the private market you control costs by who you buy from.
The people in New Orleans can better educate you about how getting anything from the Government really works.

Posted by: dottydo | October 21, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Marktlv,
How about we tie your retirement to the success or failure of the wars we were falsely dragged into? Or the economy your failed ideas helped to create? Oh, that already happened...Gee, I don't understand why we don't listen to more GOP ideas...Oh, because that would be stupid.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Now that Fox News, The Tea Baggers, The Birthers, and assorted other kooks have been exposed, Obama's poll numbers are surging. The poll numbers favoring the Public Option are surging.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 21, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The people in New Orleans can better educate you about how getting anything (from a GOP-run)Government really works.


Posted by: dottydo | October 21, 2009 9:36 AM
_______________

I fixed your obvious mistake. You're welcome.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

So these A hole liberal democrats say it's under a trillion and we're supposed to be happy?

Won't be long before the insurrection starts.

These leftist idiots are destroying our country and the usual class envy nitwits aren't intelligent enough to realize what is happening.

What dolts.

Posted by: LarryG62 | October 21, 2009 9:20 AM
--------------
I think you are a dolt because you do not understand that if we spend less then a trillion over the next ten years, we will be saving money. That is because the status quo will cost more then a trillion over the next ten years if we do nothing.

Why do you bother to read the article if you aren't going to understand the important parts like when it says:

"That so-called "robust" public option is preferred by liberals because it would save the government money and could force private insurers to lower their own reimbursement rates, driving down the cost of health care overall."

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

CBO confirms House Health Care legislation, with a strong public option, reduces both deficit and taxes.

This should help to garner 100% Republican support.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 21, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Independent4tw,
I would rather have the government run my care, because I can vote for who is in government.

I can't vote for who runs private insurance. So when private insurance raises their prices so the CEO can buy a house, I can't fire him.


I can "fire" the representative in government though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

TEA PARTY REVOLT refusal to earn a dime to tax for Obamaland and Bear Revolt is on, so it looks like this Fed 2009 is fired now, doesn't it?


By the way, in the private market you control costs by who you buy from.
The people in New Orleans can better educate you about how getting anything from the Government really works.

Posted by: dottydo | October 21, 2009 9:36 AM |
-------------

But in the private market, who ever holds all the chips can sway the costs. Big insurance companies can drive costs low enough to kill competition, and then raise them after the other companies fail. They do it all the time.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Voodoo ! Why do you keep reporting with great headlines and obfuscated explanations that the HealthCare cost is being reduce here, and deficit neutral there, and that it won't cost as much as thought, and on and on.....This is all a charade and the numbers can not be trusted. The estimates are full of accounting gimmicks at best, and are plain Brazilian voodoo at worst. At no time in the history of Congress their estimated costs of all bill concerning Medicare, Medicaid, and all other HealtCare provisions, they have met the estimated cost when passing the bills. Without exception the actual cost has been not just 10% or 100% higher, but they have been higher by the thousand percentiles. Stop trying to make us believe that this time will be different and that all those estimated costs are realistic or honest.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | October 21, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

$871 Billion....... a drop in the bucket if we cut that wasteful, obscene military budget & put the money to good use for the common good of the country. Makes more sense than entering into illegal wars against innocent people.

A Modest Medicare Proposal by Thom Hartmann
http://magginkat.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/dear-president-obama-a-modest-medicare-proposal/

It would be so easy. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel with this so-called “public option” that’s a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works.

Posted by: Magginkat | October 21, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

CBO confirms House Health Care legislation, with a strong public option, reduces both deficit and taxes.

This should help to garner 100% Republican support.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 21, 2009 9:56 AM |
---------------
If you care about taxes, then you better jump on the public option bandwagon or be exposed as a partisan hack.

This should really weed out the racists and the idiots who use taxes as an excuse to hate on Obama and the democrats. Now they have nothing left to cry about but tort reform. It is too bad that none of them know what tort reform is.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"Wait...slow down...what's the rush?"
That's what I was saying...
-when we bombed Iraq
-when we de-regulated the finance industry
-when we deforested America
-when we flattened the hills of WV for dirty coal
-when we borrowed heavily from China to finance bombing Iraq
-when we allowed No Child Left Behind to cripple our national education system
-when we began building the Bridge to Nowhere
-when we started integrating church and state
-when we gave the presidency to the Robber Baron Bush
-when we allowed Saudi Arabia to tell us how to investigate 9/11
-when justice became subject to the size of your wallet
etc. etc. etc.

You can cram your "what's the hurry?" arguement up your butt and sit and spin. We've BEEN waiting since 1993, idiots. This idea didn't just come up, it just seems like that because the GOP wouldn't dare even discuss legislation that benefitted ALL Americans. They only work for white folks...or haven't you been to a Tea Party?

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

EUR/USD tops 1.50

Oil hits $80 per barrel

FED URGENTLY should rise the Rates.

Posted by: halozcel1 | October 21, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Voodoo ! Why do you keep reporting with great headlines and obfuscated explanations that the HealthCare cost is being reduce here, and deficit neutral there, and that it won't cost as much as thought, and on and on.....This is all a charade and the numbers can not be trusted. The estimates are full of accounting gimmicks at best, and are plain Brazilian voodoo at worst. At no time in the history of Congress their estimated costs of all bill concerning Medicare, Medicaid, and all other HealtCare provisions, they have met the estimated cost when passing the bills. Without exception the actual cost has been not just 10% or 100% higher, but they have been higher by the thousand percentiles. Stop trying to make us believe that this time will be different and that all those estimated costs are realistic or honest.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | October 21, 2009 9:58 AM
----------
You pick:

1. Trust the government, who you can fire if they lie.

2. Trust the insurance lobbyists, who lie all day long and you can't do anything about it.

I'll take the government, that way I can at least march on Washington and get things changed.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

This is just so much blather. With all the assumptions built into the analysis over a ten year period, who knows what this will cost? Who can believe that any of this is (1) Valid or (2) Won't go the way of most government entitlement programs -- incremental cost creep until it is too big to change or undo.

The agenda here is not health care, it is social. The Democrats want to get a foundation put in place which will put Congress in substantial control of another 17% of the economy. How they can manipulate their agenda by manipulating reimbursements, taxes, fees, and what is "affordable" as a lever to squash private choice is mind-boggling.

Responsible leadership sometimes should take incremental steps to determine empirically what works and what doesn't. When you're dealing with this much impact in this much uncertainty, any other path is just irresponsible.

If you can save $400B in Medicare -- prove it by doing it. "Hope is not a strategy."

Fix health care. But, do it in the national interest, not your party's ideological imperatives.

Posted by: DOps | October 21, 2009 9:30 AM
---------------
The CBO knows more then you do.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how much
it is costing to allow
MEXICO to infect the country
with their PIG FLU !

And shouldn't
EVERY CITIZEN have
a LAW SUIT against the U.S.
for not defending our border ?

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | October 21, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

you ceo loving fools!
screw another 800 billion to the ceos!

it's single payer - stupid!

Posted by: ryan_heart | October 21, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

To DAMNEDGENLEMEN and Independent4tw:

You both sound pretty angry--you need to watch your blood pressure before you end up in a government run hospital. All kidding aside, this is a very important issue. I would have you know that I am not a GOP stooge, but a JFK Conservative! Big difference. JFK you know was NOT a supporter of government run health care, though his brother Teddy (a liberal) was. JFK lower taxes across the board, starting what many believed to be the true beginnings of supply-side economics--it worked too, fostering in a much improve economy, standard of life and revenues to the Federal government--the very same revenues LBJ used for his Great Society programs. JFK was also a defender of liberty and personal freedoms and was not afraid to use military might to foster peace. In fact, the catch phase of JFK's Defense Department was, "The greatest force for peace in the world!" Of course JFK fought in WWII and knew something about the threat of tyranny. I believed in our initial response to the 911 attacks, from there I'm not sure, and remain unsure today--will have to see how the Bush legacy plays out. I might remind you that we're still in Germany after all these years--that's a debate for another time. You both however missed the premise of my original thoughts and argument to yours. This is the issue we are dealing with now. Government is not accountable--hasn't been for a long time. Once enacted, who knows how this program will change over the years and what the ultimate costs might be--you do not, nor do I, nor do the bobble-heads in DC, or our President. Let's have the CBO score that! Which brings me to a condition in my first provision (actually, I liked my second provision better), but here it goes: the cost of this Bill cannot raise the deficit by one dime (promise made by P.O.)and that should be based on the deficit he inherited when he came to office, +/- $400 Billion and not the deficit going into the next budget, 1.4 Trillion. At some point my dear friends, you must look at these things rationally and shed the emotion--this is how real reform happens and how good ideas are debated. Happy landing!

Posted by: Marktlv | October 21, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Your headline is totally deceitful. No one knows what any bill coming out Congress is going to cost, and the unknown costs are usually double what is spouted. Maybe somebody says it is going to cost that much, but we have been lied to by Congress, business, and the media for so long, how can we believe anything, especially a headline that depicts the cost of a future entitlement?

Please be more responsible in how you headline articles.......cost can never be quoted accurately.

Posted by: Tawodi | October 21, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Well we are saved!? It is only 9/10th of a trillion! Do we have the money, now or in the future...WHY NO...SO let's borrow more!

But let's not count the $275 billion on the Medicare Reimbursement update passed yesterday.

Posted by: NeoConVeteran | October 21, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

When you add back the $250BB to restore the Medicare doctor's salaries that were just passed in a separate bill, the price tag is $1.121TT.

Figures don't lie, liars and the Democratic leadership figure!

Posted by: mike85 | October 21, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Well we are saved!? It is only 9/10th of a trillion! Do we have the money, now or in the future...WHY NO...SO let's borrow more!

But let's not count the $275 billion on the Medicare Reimbursement update passed yesterday.

Posted by: NeoConVeteran
-----------
Try reading the article.

That $900 billion is LESS then if we do nothing:

"That so-called "robust" public option is preferred by liberals because it would save the government money and could force private insurers to lower their own reimbursement rates, driving down the cost of health care overall."

So if you are crying about money, which it seems you are, then you better support the public option and reform, or you will spend more money.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Marktlv'
Deficit spending has never concerned either side when implementing their agenda, it only serves as an arguement against anything that doesn't benefit their party. Both sides are guilty of this.
And yes, someone will always find a way to game the system, but at this point there is NO EXCUSE for doing nothing. It has taken 16 years to get another chance to reform an obviously seriously flawed system, and I and the majority of America are not willing to wait another 16.
Nor are we stupid enough not to realize that THAT is the GOP goal, not "serious debate" or "thoughtful analysis" or "systematic reform".
To the GOP, no means no. No today, no tomorrow, no forever. To pretend otherwise is criminal and traitorous.

But hey, I'm all in favor of letting anyone who wants to opt out of Medicare since it's so terrible and such a threat to your freedom.
No takers? No surprise.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Hilarious.

Less cost, more competition and more people covered - and CONSERVATIVES don't like it???

Their corporate masters must really be feeling the pinch.

Posted by: solsticebelle | October 21, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Hey, when the public option bankrupts the country and results in many premature deaths (e.g. people over 65 who aren't worth the money), democrats/liberals can try to blame the Republicans and Independents for not stopping them. Perhaps, this would make a nice fall-back plan?

Posted by: nosam32 | October 21, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Hey, when the public option bankrupts the country and results in many premature deaths (e.g. people over 65 who aren't worth the money), democrats/liberals can try to blame the Republicans and Independents for not stopping them. Perhaps, this would make a nice fall-back plan?

Posted by: nosam32 | October 21, 2009 10:44 AM
----------------
When the republicans actually come up with a plan to change health care, America will be better again.

Your post and my comment will not happen though, the public option is going to save this country money. It says it right in front of your face, maybe you just can't read.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Let me get this right. We want public option so it will "force private insurers to lower their own reimbursement rates, driving down the cost of health care overall". Yet, on the other hand, we, who have been belaboring the private insurers for not doing enough towards that goal, were trying to sneak in a bonus $250 BILLION dollar payment to doctors to make up for the low medicare reimbursements. Very interesting. Kudos to he who said that in US we don't really have a two party system. We have a single party of scam f*ing artists.

Posted by: vishalg_99 | October 21, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Stop already with the UN propaganda about "the rest of the world has better health care than the U.S.". It's simply not true. The U.N. is defining the "goodness" of health care in a manner which specifically disadvantages the U.S., where illegal aliens do not have the same access that citizens do, and there are other factors.
Everyone needs to understand one simple fact about this so-called "reform": it has nothing to do with health care. It has EVERYTHING to do with more government encroachment into our private lives and decisions. If this passes, there is going to be an awful lot of buyer's remorse in ten years, by which time it will be too late. Wake up now.

Posted by: Toosoonoldtoolatesmart | October 21, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

To DAMNEDGENTLEMEN:

Yes, I agree about deficit spending--it belongs to both party's. No surprise there. But at point do we begin to get serious about not spending what we don't have--even for benevolent reasons.

Yes, everyone in Medicare should be able to opt out of it.

This bill is NOT healthcare reform, despite how it's labeled.

Healthcare reform is this:
1. End all subsidies to business for health insurance provided to employees as part of their overall compensation practice.
2. Allow all Americans to deduct a portion of their total health insurance premiums from their taxes--say 50%.
3. End Medicare and Medicaid--pick a date and it ends, graduate the pay-in and pay-out so it doesn't hit the elderly all at once.
4. Allow insurance companies to define their own plans and sell them across state lines.
5. Allow doctor's to bill what they want for services rendered.
6. Establish tort reforms that protect patients rights while not allowing trial lawyers to rape the system

Net effect: You bring market controls and competition to healthcare. Doctor's make more, provide better services. Individuals price healthcare use and options the same as they would buy a car. Insurance companies compete with each other in a real world process--driving down the cost of insurance and coverage. Individuals no longer use the emergency room for a runny nose-I think someone earlier used that expression and I like it--it's a fact of life today.

Posted by: Marktlv | October 21, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Toosoonoldtoolatesmart,
I call shenanigans, fool. there is only one thing you need to know about healthcare in Europe vs. healthcare here...
the SURVIVAL RATE IS HIGHER THERE THAN HERE! And that is after (U.S.) insurance companies reject many who are very high risk to survive. You know, because EVERYONE gets treated over there, even the ones who are actually sick.
It's all about results...which I realize is anathema to the GOP, but give it a whirl sometime.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Comments, comments...

They lie, with apologies for paraphrasing Joe Wilson.

You know it, I know it, they know it... Their are people in refugee camps in Afghanistan and President Obama's brothers illiterate neighbors know it.

Posted by: DrMysterious | October 21, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"... cut the cost of their health-care overhaul to around $871 billion..." This is hilarious. We are bankrupt. $ .43 of every dollar "borrowed." Manipulating the stock market by having billionaires dump money into it to creep it over the 10,000 mark (it was at 14,000 under Bush). The voters are asleep at the switch.

Posted by: IQ168 | October 21, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"... cut the cost of their health-care overhaul to around $871 billion..." This is hilarious. We are bankrupt. $ .43 of every dollar "borrowed." Manipulating the stock market by having billionaires dump money into it to creep it over the 10,000 mark (it was at 14,000 under Bush). The voters are asleep at the switch.

Posted by: IQ168 | October 21, 2009 11:15 AM |
--------------
What was the mark at when Bush left office?

"Through the eight Bush years, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index fell by an annualized rate of 2.3%. This makes George W. Bush the only president of the last five who has seen the stock market decline over the course of his presidency."

Way to cherry pick your values. Bush had a mark of 14,000 at the best time during his administration, only to let it die down to 7920 before handing it over to Obama.

That is a lose of 44% smart guy.

Now that I proved that your examples are completely backwards, will you admit that you are wrong?

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I admit IQ168 is wrong, and I would bet my life savings his IQ assertion is wildly exaggerated.
Also, who cares where the market numbers are? If you didn't get that those numbers are meaningless day to day, well Mensa wants your fake I.Q. back.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

In order to gain a clear view of cost, look at your state, county and city budgets and the budgets of hospitals in your area, and see how many of your tax dollars every year are spent on health care for the uninsured. It's a rude awakening.

Posted by: beaone | October 21, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I admit IQ168 is wrong, and I would bet my life savings his IQ assertion is wildly exaggerated.
Also, who cares where the market numbers are? If you didn't get that those numbers are meaningless day to day, well Mensa wants your fake I.Q. back.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 11:53 AM
--------
Maybe he took his IQ exam off the back of a cereal box.

Maybe he just added up the IQ of his family as some kind of "Family IQ" number.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

And CASH FOR CLUNKERS was only going to cost 2 billion, but it tripled.
You can expect the real cost for this gov't health bill to cost your children and grandchildren 4-6 times what they are now mis-stating.

Posted by: EvreeMan | October 21, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

EvreeMan,
My grandchildren will be too busy fighting a war in Iraq started by idiots based on lies and dying of co2 poisoning from "clean coal" to worry about their debt, but thanks for caring.


Tool.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

And CASH FOR CLUNKERS was only going to cost 2 billion, but it tripled.
You can expect the real cost for this gov't health bill to cost your children and grandchildren 4-6 times what they are now mis-stating.

Posted by: EvreeMan | October 21, 2009 1:12 PM
-------------
Lets examine your logic, or lack of logic I should say:

You say situation X (Cash for clunkers) costs 3 times as much as expected.

You then say that situation Y(Health care), a completely different situation, costs 4-6 times as much.

Why would you bother to use situation X as an example when you don't even have the same multiplier?

If your logic wasn't flawed, you would say that "because cash for clunkers was three times as much as they said it would be, the health reform will be three times as much as they said it would be."

That would have been a valid argument. Instead you said 4-6 times, which is a completely baseless claim pulled out of think air.

Now, lets look at "Cash for clunkers" specifically. That plan was actually MORE successful then the administration thought it would be by 3 fold.

The whole idea of that was to get people to buy new cars. When people buy new cars, they get better mileage, which reduces the amount of gasoline we have to purchase from other countries and it reduces the amount of waste we release into the air. It also helps our economy by getting fresh loans to the banks and selling cars.

So, if you use "Cash for Clunkers" as an example of what the Obama administration can do, then you could argue that the public option and health care reform will be 3 times more better then what they are saying.

(You can't say that the success of "Cash for clunkers" is an example of why health reform will fail. That just makes no sense.)

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

We are worse than we have ever been. UNEMPLOYMENT is HIGHER than ever, FOOD is higher than ever, GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL are higher than ever, TAXES are higher than ever and with "THE ONE", THE LIAR, they will be RAISING and OUR YOUNG MEN ARE STILL DYING. WHAT has this USELESS POS been doing for NINE (9) months beside TRAVELING THE WORLD WITH MISSY? BLOWING OUR TAX MONEY?

Posted by: otisplumber | October 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

We are worse than we have ever been. UNEMPLOYMENT is HIGHER than ever, FOOD is higher than ever, GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL are higher than ever, TAXES are higher than ever and with "THE ONE", THE LIAR, they will be RAISING and OUR YOUNG MEN ARE STILL DYING. WHAT has this USELESS POS been doing for NINE (9) months beside TRAVELING THE WORLD WITH MISSY? BLOWING OUR TAX MONEY?

Posted by: otisplumber | October 21, 2009 1:38 PM

Gas is NOT higher then ever. Remember when it was $4.50 a gallon? Are you too young to remember that?

Unemployment is not higher then ever. It is the highest that it has been for about 20 years, but it is NOT higher then ever.

Food is higher then ever because of natural inflation. Things get more expensive with time. That is something you should talk to your grandmother about. Maybe you can by her some penny candy...oh wait...that stuff doesn't exist at that price anymore...must be OBAMA! (sarcasm)

Taxes are NOT higher then ever. Taxes are actually lower this year then they were for the last 8 years. (Unless you make mroe then $250,000 that is).

People are still dying because we are still trying to get out of a war that was started a long time ago.

Obama is traveling the world trying to talk sense into idiots like you, who are completely wrong. In your one comment there were 4 factual errors. So are you stupid, are you too lazy to research the truth, or are you making up lies on purpose?

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"cost of their health-care overhaul to around $871 billion "

Cost of Republican War on Iraq, two trillion and counting.

Posted by: rodneythecat | October 21, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

If Democrats fail to pass a public healthcare option despite a large majority of Americans supporting it, then the Democratic Party fail its leadership and its mandate, and would soon find its way out of the leadership position.

Posted by: pspox | October 21, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"cost of their health-care overhaul to around $871 billion "

Cost of Republican War on Iraq, two trillion and counting.

Posted by: rodneythecat | October 21, 2009 1:53 PM
---------------
Cost of Bush's tax cuts for the rich:

$2.4 Trillion

(To which 70% was paid to the top 2% earners in the country. If you made over $10 million, you got a bonus of $500,000 just for supporting Bush.)

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

If Democrats fail to pass a public healthcare option despite a large majority of Americans supporting it, then the Democratic Party fail its leadership and its mandate, and would soon find its way out of the leadership position.

Posted by: pspox | October 21, 2009 2:12 PM
---------
I know that I will do my best to vote against anyone who votes down the public option. I guess I am going to vote for Arlene Specter this year, regardless of his Bush affiliation. I care more about his views on the public option then anything else.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

To those of you who have health insurance: pray you don't have to use it!
To those of you who don't have health insurance: pray you never get sick!
To those of you who have health insurance and oppose health care reform: drop dead!
To those of you who cry socialism: love it or leave it!

Posted by: yamamah | October 21, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Independent4tw,
Speaking of which, if we had never had the Bush tax cuts for the undeserving, but still had to deal with the other 4,793,583 blatantly stupid moves he made, we would currently, as of today, still be around a trillion dollars in the black to deal with the economic crisis, climate change, healthcare, etc.

Which party is looking out for the little guy again?

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The latest poll puts nationwide support of a "public option" at 57%.

Further, a public option that states could opt out of has even higher support says Neb. Senator Nelson.

This version, where states could opt out and opt in would give great legitimacy to a public option, since states could compare their outcomes, and the public option will show itself over time to be good or bad by comparing the state vs state results.

Posted by: HalHorvath | October 21, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with democrat/liberal thinking? They propose that we pay 10 years for 5 years worth of service! Of course, they also want to cut Medicare by $500b! All this just to gain power! Their thirst for power will have them work under the guise of health care just to strip freedom(s) from people...gaining more power. POWER, POWER, POWER! What is wrong with these people? This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous to the USA and its citizens.

Posted by: nosam32 | October 21, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

As a physician, tying a public option to Medicare rates is simply a screw job where the government decides what to pay physicians no matter what the value of their service or time is. It makes me sick to think that people are so willing to turn physicians, against their will, into government workers. Within a few years the quality of person going into Medicine will probably drop off the map because what bright kid is going to go into debt, work their rear off for ten years, and try to set up a practice, only to be told by the some bureaucrat what you are allowed to charge and to make.

Posted by: tjh57 | October 21, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you, tjh57. Only people who are really dumbed down can actually want the Obamacare scam to be perpetrated against them!

Under the one-payer system (socialized medicine) that Obama and his accomplices plan for us sooner or later, doctors will be working for the government, following government’s orders.

Who in the government? Obama’s Health Care Czar Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel? Dr. Emanuel (also called Dr. Death) has said that “Medical care should not be given to those who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”

If doctors report to Dr. Emanuel, they will have to refuse medical care to the elderly and the handicapped because they are “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”

Obama and his Czars, including Science Czar John Holdren, seem to share Dr. Emanuel’s thinking. As a Senator, Obama voted in favor of abortion and infanticide (late-term abortion). And Science Czar John Holdren has called for population-control policies such as forced abortions, mass sterilizations, and mandatory population controls.

We DO NOT want Obama and his ACORN and Marxist accomplices to “take care of us.” We would be safer in the hands of the mafia!

We do NOT WANT SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM!

Posted by: AntonioSosa | October 21, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Just make all the increased cost an additional tax on the republicans who pay the taxes-we get ours free. Easy way to increase the number of Democrats.

Posted by: MarxBro | October 21, 2009 10:35 PM | Report abuse

worried about the outcome of this new health reform ... http://www.typobounty.com/Funny/Health_Care_Reform.htm

Posted by: cheezweez2u | October 22, 2009 8:52 AM | Report abuse

SO IT COST 871 BILLION FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM IT MAY COST OVER 1 TRILLION WITHOUT HEALTH CAR REFORM.WE NEED TO HAVE MANY MORE CHOICES.IT'S TIME TO START MORE COMPANYS... PUBLIC OPTION COMPANYS THAT TURN PRIVATE IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO THE HEALTH INDUSTRYS CEO'S IN CHARGE WON'T LET IT HAPPEN UNLESS THE GOVERMENT DOES IT.. AND OUR SENATE MAY NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Posted by: theoldmansays | October 23, 2009 2:12 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company