NY Times quadruples cost of House health bill
New York Times reporters Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn falsely claimed in a July 28 article that the House health care reform bill is "estimated at $1 trillion over 10 years." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that the House tri-committee bill "would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period," not $1 trillion.
From the July 28 New York Times article, "Democrats Push Health Care Plan While Issuing Assurances on Medicare":
President Obama tried Tuesday to sell his health care plan to older Americans, as members of Congress said they were deluged with calls from constituents worried that their Medicare benefits might be cut to help finance coverage for the uninsured.
The outpouring of concern over Medicare came as House Democratic leaders tried to assuage the concerns of fiscally conservative House Democrats who have held up action on health care legislation while they press for changes to reduce the cost of the bill, estimated at $1 trillion over 10 years.
Pear, Herszenhorn claim bill cost is "estimated at $1 trillion over 10 years" is false
CBO found that the House tri-committee bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion. In its July 17 cost estimate of the bill as introduced, CBO explained that its "estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years."
NYT joins MSNBC in advancing false cost estimate. During the July 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, CNBC host Maria Bartiromo falsely asserted as fact that the health care reform proposal under consideration in Congress will cost a "trillion dollars over 10 years."
Apples and oranges. What's going to increase or be cut to make it a "net" increase of $239 billion vs. simply a regular increase?
Your text to link here...
That's why the healthcare reform cost won't be $1 trillion or the savings $800 billion.
Costs will be many times higher and savings nil.
The only reason why I responded is that you guys want to low price tag on Americans' life and health. There was a big brouhaha from conservatives when the CBO scored an incomplete plan to be around 1.6 trillion dollars. Now that it's only a fraction of that, conservatives suddenly don't believe the numbers. Why are you guys cherry picking which numbers you are willing to accept?
So you're of the opinion that the CBO should stop scoring all legislation and programs and congressmen can just make up their own numbers. Alright.
Obama can promise you the moon but it all depends on the legislative branch because that's where law is made.
I'm sorry, right ON, but you'll have to wait until his health care bill actually takes effect. That was part of the promise, you know?
They haven't arrived yet. You won't see them for several years. If we did save 219 billion over ten years somebody is going to spend less, maybe you. They are probably not part of the narrative anymore because the drug companies and insurance DON'T WANT you to have those savings and will try to stop it.
Obviously, right ON, you don't care about costs either because right now we have the most expensive health care IN THE WORLD. And do you know who's paying for this?
YOU!! Through tax breaks for companies that offer health insurance.
And your whining about costs is getting really redundant.
Keep on whining. It's what you do best.
-- The Congressional Budget Office has tested all the congressional bills so far and - guess what? - every one so far has failed except for the Healthy Americans Act, which is the one they won't let us talk about. The President has insisted repeatedly, he did it on prime time television last week, the bill has to be deficit neutral. It has to bend the cost curve in the right direction. And so far the House bill is bending the cost curve in the wrong direction. That's the opposite of reform...
The key is to have an open dialogue with all the American people, not just hardcore Democrats and Republicans, but also the folks in the middle who really are worried and skeptical and want to know what’s in the bill. --
He's talking about the bi-partisan Wyden-Bennett bill. The CBPP and the Heritage Foundation have published analysis on the bill.
A cost neutral bill might be a good place to start.
The House bill covers 97 percent of Americans and offers Americans another choice other than the private sector. That is reform to me (that doesn't go far enough); others may disagree.
One of the problems with the health bill is that it simply adds millions more to an already broken system. We know that won't lower costs, instead it will raise them. We also know that medicare and medicaid have far exceeded their original estimated costs and that they are going broke.
True reform would include legislation that will lower costs by limiting medical liability and an effective program for reducing the $100 billion plus wasted every year on defensive medicine.
Rather than create more bureaucrats, a true reform bill would allow the citizen to pay directly for his medical coverage and let the market forces bring prices down. If that is to much, then limit government coverage to only covering catastrophic illnesses/accidents and let the day to day medical costs be absored by the individuals and their insurance companies.
We've got the best medical services in the world. I see no sense in mucking it up with thousands of pages of bureaucracy written by special interests and the government taking over one sixth of our GDP.
What you are saying might be the case if all markets were tiny, isolated things as described by Adam Smith, but health care is not a standard market.
Ask economists. Health Care, like energy, doesn't have market pressures to drive costs up or down.
How much would you pay to not die? How much would you pay to not be in extreme pain? How much would you pay to get over being sick? You can't say "oh, well I was going to be sick but I choose not to because I think all heath care services are over priced." Whats more, when you are not sick health care has NO value.
Also, people need to stop talking to docotors and start talking to lawyers about liability. Even organizations like the ABA have indicated that capping liability won't bring costs down. It will likely raise them because every lawsuit will begin at the maximum possible payout.
Liability is fundamentally counter productive to innovative treatment. The only real way to reduce that cost would be to make medical liability insurance like nuclear power plant insurance. Not provided by anybody except the goverment.
I understand some people ar concerned with a public option. However, without it major changes need to be made. No state should have fewer than 3 health care providers. No health care provider should be allowed to turn ANYBODY down for service for any reason. As long as you pay up no health insurance company should be able to drop you. Your health insurance needs to be affordable without the 80% employer subsidy.
We pay more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world and we are one of the least healthy. Our hospitals cost more, our medicine costs more, everything costs more in America.
To those who don't want rationing: WE ALREADY RATION. Its called dollars. Those who have money can get whatever sort of health care they want, no matter how pointless. Those without unlimited funds get significatnly less.
I find it imaginable how many lies are being spread about this. How so many memebers of goverment can play politics with this is baffiling.
If, as a country, we really do hold that among our inalienable rights is life we should make the care and wellness of that life be rolled into that right?
2. Medicaid and Medicare help the most vulnerable members of our society and can be solvent if we raise taxes on the wealthy.
3. A government bureaucrat would only be charged with paying out claims (hopefully based on results and not the number of tests) unlike a corporate bureaucrat who is actively looking to deny your claim.
4. Why do you think the government should tinker with medical liability?
5. I'm not so sure anymore that we have the best medical services in the world. You can get great care anywhere in the world.
6. Someone on the left suggested something that would lower cost. I'm not saying I agree with it but I thought it was interesting. He suggested we start importing doctors. These doctors would work for less than American doctors. Would you be in favor of such a proposal as a free market and globalization advocate?
It seems the rest of your solution to the health care crisis is to accentuate the very features of our system that make it the worlds most costly and inefficient. The "market forces" will never bring health care costs down, by nature, they bring costs up inexorably. The two primary goals of for-profit insurers will always be to deny coverage to as many of the most risky patients and to deny care to as many of those already enrolled as possible. Insurance companies need a much larger beuracracy to achieve these two goals than the government would to simply administer healthcare on the basis of need. That is why the free market will never solve the health-care crisis.
I think you are exagerating and I find your link to be a little short on documentation, but be that as it may, what I do believe I've said more than once is that your chart leaves out the cost associated with avoiding lawsuits in the practice of defensive medicine
Take a look at this from the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons:
"...If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.
Excessive litigation and waste in the nation’s current tort system imposes an estimated yearly tort tax of $9,827 for a family of four and increases healthcare spending in the United States by $124 billion. How does this translate to individuals? The average obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) delivers 100 babies per year. If that OB-GYN must pay a medical liability premium of $200,000 each year (which is the rate in Florida), $2,000 of the delivery cost for each baby goes to pay the cost of the medical liability premium."
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp
Apparently your chart leaves out this important part of the equation. Looking at your source, I see Americans for Insurance Reform is a coalition of far leftist groups who have as their agenda, government controlled health care. Of course they will try to use statistics to diminish the costs associated to the individual for malpractice insurance because it is in their interest to do so.
Why you or anyone would argue for tort reform is beyond me.
ps. I disagree completely with your contention that insurers deny care to as many of those already enrolled as possible. That is pure hyperbole. Yes there are examples where some insurance companies have denied claims, and that should be looked at, but on the whole, they provide excellent coverage to millions of Americans.
p.s., unfortunately, your healthcare is the insurer's liability. If you think those wonderful people at insurance desks would never deny you coverage just because it is in their companies financial interest, then someone never told you what kind of world we live in.
Citation please. I thought we are 17th in health outcomes in the developed world and we pay twice as much as anybody else.
Also many other countries do not report their health findings the same as the U.S. Infant mortality being one of them.
For these and other reasons, the rankings are basically worthless and only serve as propaganda for the left.
ps. I agree that we do pay a lot for health care, but it is the best in the world.
If we have the best health care in the world, why do we have a high infant mortality rate when compared to other industrialized countries?
If it is so great, why do 18,000 people die each year due to lack of available health care?
If it is so great, why are 47 million people uninsured?
If it is so great, why are 2/3 of bankruptcies related to health care costs?
Care to rethink you opinion?
Anyone take a look at the stimulus bill results lately? Obaman's claimed it would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.
What about this one? Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
How do you progressives reconcile those falsehoods?