The impact of HCR on the economy?

[☭proletarian☭]

Our nation’s long-term federal budget deficit problem is almost entirely a health care problem. Ten years ago, 17 percent of the federal budget was devoted to the two largest health care entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the past decade, that share
climbed to 21 percent and is expected to reach 25 percent by the end of this one. After that point, if we do nothing, Medicare and Medicaid will continue to swallow up a larger and larger proportion of the federal budget, while simultaneously pushing overall government spending to new and unsustainable heights. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under current policies, spending on Medicare and Medicaid in 2030 will exceed $3 trillion, close to four times as much as is spent today. The health care path that we find ourselves on will lead to a budget that is permanently and dangerously unbalanced.
The health care reform plans that are currently before Congress take the first step toward getting off of our current path and onto a more sustainable one. They do not solve the entire problem, but the plans do offer tens of billions of dollars worth of direct deficit reduction plus the promise of billions of dollars more in savings as the efficiency and modernization provisions kick in.
Anyone concerned about our long-term budget situation but opposed to the current health reform effort must answer this simple question: In the absence of health care reform, what other policies do you support that will reduce the deficit by at least $1 trillion over the next two decades?

The Math Is Clear

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who has been working for the last 25 years can see how much more healthcare costs and how it is becoming unsustainable. Employer funded health insurance used to be a throw-in benefit. It didn't cost much and employers picked up the tab.
Now, employers are insisting that the workers pick up more and more of the tab and are looking at ways to not provide healthcare at all.
If we do nothing today, just wait ten years and tell me how happy you are with your existing healthcare

 

[The Rabbi]

And every proposal from the Democrats will make this problem WORSE, not better. This is why the states are threatening to sue to block its implementation.

 

[saveliberty]

The health care bill does not call for reductions in health care costs. It calls for affordable health care. The only conclusion you can come to is Congress considers present costs acceptable and understands it will grow. They just want to reduce the rate and gain control over the industry and the citizenry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And every proposal from the Democrats will make this problem WORSE, not better. This is why the states are threatening to sue to block its implementation.

^

What he said!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, let's double down on Medicare and Medicaid....that's the ticket!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Our nation’s long-term federal budget deficit problem is almost entirely a health care problem. Ten years ago, 17 percent of the federal budget was devoted to the two largest health care entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the past decade, that share
climbed to 21 percent and is expected to reach 25 percent by the end of this one. After that point, if we do nothing, Medicare and Medicaid will continue to swallow up a larger and larger proportion of the federal budget, while simultaneously pushing overall government spending to new and unsustainable heights. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under current policies, spending on Medicare and Medicaid in 2030 will exceed $3 trillion, close to four times as much as is spent today. The health care path that we find ourselves on will lead to a budget that is permanently and dangerously unbalanced.
The health care reform plans that are currently before Congress take the first step toward getting off of our current path and onto a more sustainable one. They do not solve the entire problem, but the plans do offer tens of billions of dollars worth of direct deficit reduction plus the promise of billions of dollars more in savings as the efficiency and modernization provisions kick in.
Anyone concerned about our long-term budget situation but opposed to the current health reform effort must answer this simple question: In the absence of health care reform, what other policies do you support that will reduce the deficit by at least $1 trillion over the next two decades?

The Math Is Clear

I haven't heard anyone who has said we don't need reform; no one disagrees with that. But what Dems are shoving will not solve the problem. They're using accounting gimmicks to make the numbers fit their model. Guess they thought it worked so well for global warming for so long that they could do the same thing with this and hope that it passes and is implemented before anyone is the wiser.

btw, how will this health care be run, which government model will they be using? Amtrak? Social security? Medicare? Medicad? USPS?

 

[Claudette]

YOur so right.

The Govt track record on anything is lousy. Everything they have a hand in ends up costing way more than was predicted.

Oh yeah. Lets let Govt run healthcare. Hell. I wouldn't trust these Clowns run a popsickle stand. I sure as hell wouldn't trust them to run my budget either. Jeeze.

 

[Care4all]

Our nation’s long-term federal budget deficit problem is almost entirely a health care problem. Ten years ago, 17 percent of the federal budget was devoted to the two largest health care entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the past decade, that share
climbed to 21 percent and is expected to reach 25 percent by the end of this one. After that point, if we do nothing, Medicare and Medicaid will continue to swallow up a larger and larger proportion of the federal budget, while simultaneously pushing overall government spending to new and unsustainable heights. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under current policies, spending on Medicare and Medicaid in 2030 will exceed $3 trillion, close to four times as much as is spent today. The health care path that we find ourselves on will lead to a budget that is permanently and dangerously unbalanced.
The health care reform plans that are currently before Congress take the first step toward getting off of our current path and onto a more sustainable one. They do not solve the entire problem, but the plans do offer tens of billions of dollars worth of direct deficit reduction plus the promise of billions of dollars more in savings as the efficiency and modernization provisions kick in.
Anyone concerned about our long-term budget situation but opposed to the current health reform effort must answer this simple question: In the absence of health care reform, what other policies do you support that will reduce the deficit by at least $1 trillion over the next two decades?

The Math Is Clear

I haven't heard anyone who has said we don't need reform; no one disagrees with that. But what Dems are shoving will not solve the problem. They're using accounting gimmicks to make the numbers fit their model. Guess they thought it worked so well for global warming for so long that they could do the same thing with this and hope that it passes and is implemented before anyone is the wiser.

btw, how will this health care be run, which government model will they be using? Amtrak? Social security? Medicare? Medicad? USPS?

The article and CBO says there is savings with this bill....?

Deficit reduction with health care reform

The health care reform package currently under consideration by Congress offers both tangible direct deficit reduction as well as the very real potential to significantly reduce overall health care costs over the next several decades. Both will be required to substantially alter our present budgetary course.

Estimates vary as to the precise amount of deficit reduction that we can expect from health care reform. On the low end is the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, which does not take into account any efficiency improvements stemming from the legislation.
CBO’s “score” (budget lingo for an evaluation of the budgetary costs of a piece of legislation), which only includes direct changes in spending and revenues, has health care reform reducing the deficit by between $920 billion and $1.7 trillion over the next two decades.

Harvard University health economist David Cutler suggests, however, that the savings are likely to be much larger than that once the efficiency and modernization improvements contained in the bill take hold. He estimates that the total budgetary savings from now until 2030 will total around $6.5 trillion.

The scope of our budget problems is such that even $6.5 trillion in deficit reduction over 20 years is not enough to fully solve them. There is no question that passing health care reform right now is only the first step in addressing the long-term budget gap. But the
fact remains that the plan currently on the table is the largest deficit reduction measure Congress has seen in more than a decade.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Our nation’s long-term federal budget deficit problem is almost entirely a health care problem. Ten years ago, 17 percent of the federal budget was devoted to the two largest health care entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the past decade, that share
climbed to 21 percent and is expected to reach 25 percent by the end of this one. After that point, if we do nothing, Medicare and Medicaid will continue to swallow up a larger and larger proportion of the federal budget, while simultaneously pushing overall government spending to new and unsustainable heights. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under current policies, spending on Medicare and Medicaid in 2030 will exceed $3 trillion, close to four times as much as is spent today. The health care path that we find ourselves on will lead to a budget that is permanently and dangerously unbalanced.
The health care reform plans that are currently before Congress take the first step toward getting off of our current path and onto a more sustainable one. They do not solve the entire problem, but the plans do offer tens of billions of dollars worth of direct deficit reduction plus the promise of billions of dollars more in savings as the efficiency and modernization provisions kick in.
Anyone concerned about our long-term budget situation but opposed to the current health reform effort must answer this simple question: In the absence of health care reform, what other policies do you support that will reduce the deficit by at least $1 trillion over the next two decades?

The Math Is Clear

Getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid means Obama wants to kill off old people AND the poor. Fix Medicare first and leave our health care system alone. If they can't run Medicare properly only a fool would think the government could run all of health care.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The Math Is Clear

I haven't heard anyone who has said we don't need reform; no one disagrees with that. But what Dems are shoving will not solve the problem. They're using accounting gimmicks to make the numbers fit their model. Guess they thought it worked so well for global warming for so long that they could do the same thing with this and hope that it passes and is implemented before anyone is the wiser.

btw, how will this health care be run, which government model will they be using? Amtrak? Social security? Medicare? Medicad? USPS?

The article and CBO says there is savings with this bill....?

Deficit reduction with health care reform

The health care reform package currently under consideration by Congress offers both tangible direct deficit reduction as well as the very real potential to significantly reduce overall health care costs over the next several decades. Both will be required to substantially alter our present budgetary course.

Estimates vary as to the precise amount of deficit reduction that we can expect from health care reform. On the low end is the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, which does not take into account any efficiency improvements stemming from the legislation.
CBO’s “score” (budget lingo for an evaluation of the budgetary costs of a piece of legislation), which only includes direct changes in spending and revenues, has health care reform reducing the deficit by between $920 billion and $1.7 trillion over the next two decades.

Harvard University health economist David Cutler suggests, however, that the savings are likely to be much larger than that once the efficiency and modernization improvements contained in the bill take hold. He estimates that the total budgetary savings from now until 2030 will total around $6.5 trillion.

The scope of our budget problems is such that even $6.5 trillion in deficit reduction over 20 years is not enough to fully solve them. There is no question that passing health care reform right now is only the first step in addressing the long-term budget gap. But the
fact remains that the plan currently on the table is the largest deficit reduction measure Congress has seen in more than a decade.

Gimmicks.

The issue with backloading spending isn't that it hides deficit spending; it's that it hides the full cost of the bill, thus making it politically viable. When early drafts of health care reform rang up at around $1.6 trillion, Washington underwent a massive freakout; it became clear that passing a bill that kind of price tag was almost certainly impossible. So Obama gave Congress a target of "around $900 billion" for the bill, and one of the ways the lower figure was achieved was by starting the taxes revenue mechanisms immediately but holding off on implementing the benefits. That allowed for the Senate bill's politically convenient $850 billion score while disguising the fact that true cost of a full ten years of the bill's programs is actually more like $1.8 trillion (and that's not counting the trillion-plus in additional costs imposed by an individual mandate).

And I said, "Look, there's no. Effing. Way. You can actually solve this damn Chinese finger puzzle."Meanwhile, Orszag fails to address the relevant criticisms made by deficit neutrality skeptics. First is that the bill's supporters double count the Medicare savings. According to a December report by Orszag's trusted arbiter, the CBO, the bill will either reduce the deficit or extend the solvency of Medicare, not both. (And for what it's worth, Medicare's chief actuary agrees.) Yet as recently as March 10—yesterday—Obama was claiming that his health care plan would "help ensure Medicare’s solvency for an additional decade." Great! But according to the CBO, that means the bill won't actually cut the deficit.

The other problem is that, in an effort to elicit a better score for the bill, the "doc fix"—an expensive, unfunded change in the way doctor's Medicare payments are made—was excluded from the bill. So, as scored, the bill assumes that there will be a massive cut in Medicare payments to doctors that almost certainly will not occur.

The liberal argument for this is that the doc fix would have to be passed no matter what, so it shouldn't count towards the health care bill's score. Maybe so, but that's not what House Democrats thought when they drew up their initial draft of the legislation. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was more than willing to hold the fix over doctors' heads in order to ensure that they would support the Democrats' reform legislation.

And what does our good friend the CBO say? Well, if you enact the doc fix in conjunction with Obama's health care overhaul, it adds $89 billion to the deficit over the first ten years.

The White House Kindly Requests You Do Not Refer to Its Health Care Budget Gimmicks as "Gimmicks" - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[Some Guy]

Does anyone here understand that changing who pays for health care bills does nothing to reduce the costs of providing health care?

 

[The Rabbi]

Does anyone here understand that changing who pays for health care bills does nothing to reduce the costs of providing health care?

Well, it can.
If you just substitute one third party payer for another then you are right. Nothing will change.
If you make people more responsible for paying for their own care then they will spend money more carefully, driving down costs.
That's the nub.

 

[masquerade]

If memory serves, Obama himself said they had found waste and corruption within Medicare. Well then, why not go after that? Weed out all that waste and corruption! Save some money there!

We all see how the government has run Medicare and Medicaid so efficiently, why the hell would we want them to inact another entitlement program? To take on more people will NOT reduce costs or our deficit. Period.

This current healthcare reform has turned into one huge clusterfuck of red tape and government beureaucracy. Control over the citizens and creating more and more government jobs.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Nothing wrong with trying to fix health care costs.... but all the Democrat proposals I have seen are like trying to put out a fire by dousing with gasoline.

 

[Some Guy]

Does anyone here understand that changing who pays for health care bills does nothing to reduce the costs of providing health care?

Well, it can.
If you just substitute one third party payer for another then you are right. Nothing will change.
If you make people more responsible for paying for their own care then they will spend money more carefully, driving down costs.
That's the nub.

Right. I wasn't clear enough in my statement. If you simply change third-party payers, you do nothing to address the cost of health care. The only thing the government can do as a third-party payer is try to mandate the prices of health care down to where they want. If they're not careful with that though, doctors will just call it quits.

 

[☭proletarian☭]