What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Health Care Reform Cost Estimates

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
With this kind of track record?




Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

What could possibly go wrong?
 
OP
Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
ontrary to several reports, the House Democratic health care bill (H.R. 3200) is not deficit-neutral, but would raise deficits to alarming new levels over the long term. It would do this by relying on several old warhorse budget gimmicks. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 3200 would increase the budget deficit by $239 billion over ten years – that’s right, increase. And that’s even before these gimmicks:

1st Gimmick – Fiddle with Implementation Dates: True, the bill runs surpluses initially. Why? Because the tax hikes proposed to pay for the new program would begin in 2011, but the spending would be not start until 2013. This same thing happened with the Medicare drug benefit debate – lawmakers simply delayed implementation by two years in order to reduce the ten-year cost. Of course, this gimmick did not reduce the program’s true cost once fully implemented. So claims of deficit neutrality are hollow.

2nd Gimmick – Ignores Long Term Costs: The President has repeatedly stated that he would not support health care without long-term savings. Yet this legislation – and others – fails to include any formal analysis of its long-term costs. Once the bill’s new healthcare spending is fully implemented, however, it would run expanding budget deficits that reach by $65 billion annually by 2019. Moreover, this initial CBO analysis significantly understates the long term cost. Extrapolating these trends, the bill could run budget deficits of approximately $800 billion total in its second decade, and even much more thereafter. Before lawmakers pass along huge new debts to America’s younger generations, they really ought to know how big they are going to be.

Deficit-neutral? I don’t think so.

Don?t Be Fooled – House Health Care Bill Would Raise Long-Term Deficits | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

obama-mad-magazine-cover-751229.jpg
 
OP
Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
Yippie!

A picture of America’s future under Obamacare can be revealed, though, after peeling away the pages and digging through the dirt. Here’s 10 things you can expect:


A Massively Engorged Government, to the tune of $2.5 trillion in new entitlement spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), new entitlement spending in the plan would cost $216 billion by 2019, then increase by 8 percent every year thereafter.
A Cornhusker Kickback for All. No, special deals aren’t removed from Obamacare this time around. Instead, the House bill extends new federal funding for Medicaid to all states. Incidentally, you’re paying for it.
A Freight train of taxes, slamming the American people in 2018. You’ve heard of the “Cadillac” tax on high-cost insurance plans? It will be pushed back to 2018, and given the way “high-cost” plans will be defined, a large segment of the middle class would get hit with the tax over time.
Beware the shape-shifting tax monster. New taxes will take many forms, including taxes on prescription drugs, medical devices (like wheel chairs), and health insurance.
Unconstitutional mandates, courtesy of Congress. Don’t want to buy health insurance? Congress will penalize you if you don’t, regardless of income.
Lock your back door. Higher health care costs will be sneaking in. The plan gives subsidies to low-to-moderate wage families, but the subsidies will increase at a lower rate than the rate at which premiums increase. In other words, those families will pay more every year.
Lights out for small businesses? Companies that hire certain low-income Americans will have to pay $3,000 per employee, per year, even if the company offers insurance.Oh, and if a company employs 50 or more workers, they’ll face higher tax penalties to the tune of $2,000 per full-time employee.
Abortions. You will pay for them, like it or not. The House bill includes major funding for community health centers with no restrictions on federal taxpayer funding of abortions.
Want to play the stock market? Maybe not, after you hear this. The House bill slaps a 3.8% tax on investment income.
It’s not a federal system, after all. States will have less power. They’ll no longer have authority to regulate health care premiums. Instead, the federal government will take on the job. States and local governments won’t be able to control their own employee health plans; they’ll have to abide by new federal regulations.
 
OP
Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
This thread being in the politics sub forum may push Caligirl over the edge. :lol:
 
OP
Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
It is worth noting the track record for all those cheerleaders who are calling health care reform the key to fixing the economy .
It isn't and wont be. It will be the economic bomb that destroys the future.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Then why did the stock market not show this?
 
OP
Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
TM could you refrain from your irrelevant posting please ?
If you want to address the historic inaccuracies of government healthcare cost estimates please do so.
 

LibocalypseNow

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1,361
Points
48
Yea i always go with Ron Paul on this stuff. He always says he has never seen a spending bill that ended up costing what they said it would cost originally. The Democrats' $1 Trillion number is a farce. People aren't even considering what the costs will be if the Democrats are able to push Amnesty through for some 30 to 40 Million Illegals. Obviously their $1 Trillion number would increase significantly when or if that happens. Personally i expect the real costs will be at least ten times their current number. Maybe even more. I know most people are focusing on the costs of this debacle but i'm more focused on the loss of Freedom & Liberty. Forcing Citizens to buy Health Insurance by way of fining & imprisoning is just wrong in my opinion. I hope the Republicans do regain some power and are able to at least repeal that part of the debacle. This Bill is not good for America. That's all that really needs to be said.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,437
Reaction score
19,023
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Unsurprisingly, Truthmattersnot is financially illiterate.

The top 5 health insurance profit margins are not 30%. Here is the correct information from the published financial statements (latest fiscal year):

Wellpoint, $4.7B or 7.2% net profit on $65B of revenue

UnitedHealth - $3.8B or 4.4% net profit on $87B of revenue

Humana - $1B or 3.3% net profit on $30B of revenue

Cigna - $1.3B or 7% net profit on $18B of revenue

Aetna - $1.3B or 3.7% net profit on $35B of revenue


The combined net profit of these 5 companies is $12B. Total health care spending economy wide is $2.5T - this profit is less than .5% of the total.

Demonizing the insurance companies does nothing to reduce costs.
 
Last edited:

LuckyDan

Sublime
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
649
Points
48
Location
The mountains of North Central Texas
Unsurprisingly, Truthmattersnot is financially illiterate.

The top 5 health insurance profit margins are not 30%. Here is the correct information from the published financial statements (latest fiscal year):

Wellpoint, $4.7B or 7.2% net profit on $65B of revenue

UnitedHealth - $3.8B or 4.4% net profit on $87B of revenue

Humana - $1B or 3.3% net profit on $30B of revenue

Cigna - $1.3B or 7% net profit on $18B of revenue

Aetna - $1.3B or $3.7% net profit on $35B of revenue


The combined net profit of these 5 companies is $12B. Total health care spending economy wide is $2.5T - this profit is less than .5% of the total.

Demonizing the insurance companies does nothing to reduce costs.

But it wins elections.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Unsurprisingly, Truthmattersnot is financially illiterate.

The top 5 health insurance profit margins are not 30%. Here is the correct information from the published financial statements (latest fiscal year):

Wellpoint, $4.7B or 7.2% net profit on $65B of revenue

UnitedHealth - $3.8B or 4.4% net profit on $87B of revenue

Humana - $1B or 3.3% net profit on $30B of revenue

Cigna - $1.3B or 7% net profit on $18B of revenue

Aetna - $1.3B or 3.7% net profit on $35B of revenue


The combined net profit of these 5 companies is $12B. Total health care spending economy wide is $2.5T - this profit is less than .5% of the total.

Demonizing the insurance companies does nothing to reduce costs.

Your link?


The five largest U.S. health insurance companies sailed through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression to set new industry profit records in 2009, a feat accomplished by leaving behind 2.7 million Americans who had been in private health plans. For customers who kept their benefits, the insurers raised rates and cost-sharing, and cut the share of premiums spent on medical care.

Executives and shareholders of the five biggest for-profit health insurers, UnitedHealth Group Inc., WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., enjoyed combined profit of $12.2 billion in 2009, up 56 percent from the previous year. It was the best year ever for Big Insurance.http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/02/12/profits-for-largest-insurers-now-30/
 
Last edited:

LibocalypseNow

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1,361
Points
48
Health Care costs will not go down with this debacle. Most legitimate analysts agree on this. In fact costs are likely to go up with this debacle. It really is a terrible piece of legislation. Make 2010 count people.
 
OP
Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
With this kind of track record?




Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

What could possibly go wrong?
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
How many on the right complained about hosw much we spent in Iraq on killing people?
Now they complain on how much we spend on saving American people?


Patheticically flaccid partisans all.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,437
Reaction score
19,023
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Unsurprisingly, Truthmattersnot is financially illiterate.

The top 5 health insurance profit margins are not 30%. Here is the correct information from the published financial statements (latest fiscal year):

Wellpoint, $4.7B or 7.2% net profit on $65B of revenue

UnitedHealth - $3.8B or 4.4% net profit on $87B of revenue

Humana - $1B or 3.3% net profit on $30B of revenue

Cigna - $1.3B or 7% net profit on $18B of revenue

Aetna - $1.3B or 3.7% net profit on $35B of revenue


The combined net profit of these 5 companies is $12B. Total health care spending economy wide is $2.5T - this profit is less than .5% of the total.

Demonizing the insurance companies does nothing to reduce costs.

Youir link?


The five largest U.S. health insurance companies sailed through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression to set new industry profit records in 2009, a feat accomplished by leaving behind 2.7 million Americans who had been in private health plans. For customers who kept their benefits, the insurers raised rates and cost-sharing, and cut the share of premiums spent on medical care.

Executives and shareholders of the five biggest for-profit health insurers, UnitedHealth Group Inc., WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., enjoyed combined profit of $12.2 billion in 2009, up 56 percent from the previous year. It was the best year ever for Big Insurance.


You are a financial illiterate.

Here, edumacate yourself:

Business & Finance News - Yahoo! Finance

Look up the stock symbols, click on Income Statement, and read (if you can, which I seriously doubt).

(BTW, profits are up across the board. 2008 was a financial disaster economy wide - most sectors are showing sharp upticks in profit on a year over year basis - that's whyu the stock indexes are up.)
 

LibocalypseNow

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1,361
Points
48
Yea you know it's bad when you see Democrats actually boasting about the Government just garnishing your wages if you don't pay your Health Care fines or "taxes." Yikes! How could these people be boasting and gloating about that kind of thing? The Socialists have lost it completely at this point. Man,make 2010 count people.
 
OP
Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
Are there any HCR supporters who want to suggest history will not repeat itself?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top