h/t to Maggiesboy
From Pelosi's blog at the Gavel:
CBO Scores Confirm Deficit Neutrality of Health Insurance Reform Bill
July 18th, 2009 by Karina
News from the Energy & Commerce, Ways & Means, and Education & Labor Committees on the CBO estimates released last night on America’s Affordable Health Choices Act:
July 17, 2009
Washington, D.C. — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window - and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.
Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion, coupled with the $583 billion revenue package reported today by the House Committee on Ways and Means, fully finance the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform, which will provide affordable health care coverage for 97% of Americans.
“This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis,” said Chairmen Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and Chairman George Miller. “The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in fiscally-responsible manner.”
The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the “donut” hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory “pay go” legislation that is pending in the House.
14 comments:
It's a start...
A bit of good news (via Digby)
Finally, long-term home health care
WITH LITTLE FANFARE, a new public program to help pay for long-term care for adults is moving through Congress. The premium is low and the coverage is good.
Largely geared to personal and health services provided in the home, though it extends to nursing home care as a last resort, the new coverage is built into the emerging formula for national healthcare reform.
The need for home care is immense. More than 10 million Americans receive home care, and the number will rise rapidly as the population ages. Estimates hold that 75 percent of us will need home care at some point during our lifetime.
More here
Party at ToniD's ! :)
The thing that really worries me about the healthcare issue is how susceptible people are to corporate scare tactics. Obama's approval rating on health care is going down, probably because of this susceptibility as well as us on the left being concerned that it is getting too watered down.
True,mhappenow..
But,saying it's ok to do some logging in Tongass Forest and a few other things has probably helped to lower his ratings..
And,like U said..corporate scare tactics..
The M$M is right there to use as their mouth piece..
Plus,having spineless Democrat leadership really doesn't help..
I could go on and,on.. :(
The new republic started a health care blog:
Mitch McConnell Makes the Dems Look Good
Ah, there's nothing like a Mitch McConnell interview to put everything into perspective.
The Senate Minority Leader appeared on "Meet the Press" Sunday to discuss health reform. And he professed great concern for what President Obama and the Democrats had in mind.“If you're going to do something as comprehensive as the president wants to do,” McConnell said, “you ought to pay for it.”
As the item below indicates, I couldn't agree more: It's important that reform pay for itself. Still, I don't recall McConnell being quite so insistent about fiscal responsibility when he voted for the Bush tax cuts. Nor do I recall him agitating for tax increases to pay for the war with Iraq. In fact, I'm pretty sure most Republicans had very little use for arguments about fiscal responsibility when it was their initiatives on the agenda.
Gee, could it be that McConnell and the Republicans just don't care what happens to people when they can't pay for their medical care?
And, just to be clear, it's not as if Democrats are being nearly as irresponsible about paying for their ideas as Republicans were during the early parts of the decade. The Democrats have said reform will not add to the deficit. And the plans emerging from Congress seem to be true to that, at least within the confines of the budgeting rules.
According to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House bill pays for its coverage expansions within the ten year planning window, through a combination of savings and a tax increase on the very wealthiest Americans. There's a problem after that tenth year; money going out at that point seems to be larger than the money coming in. On the other hand, CBO has been pretty conservative about estimating the amount of savings various reforms will produce. In other words, the estimate may err both up and down.
We don't have a full Senate bill yet, since the Finance Committee--which has jursidicton over Medicare, Medicaid, and new revenue--is still trying to piece together its legislation. But the reason they're stuck is that they, too, have said they would produce a measure that's budget neutral. They may ultimately decide to produce a much smaller bill and, as I write below, that'd be a real tragedy. But it seems highly unlikely they'll produce something that inflates the deficit.
Indeed, if there's been a conspicuous failure so far, it's been a failure to embrace steps that would--at least by the CBO's reckoning--make a huge difference in spending over the long-term. But think about what that means. The problem is that Democrats may not be doing enough to fix an existing fiscal problem. That's quite a bit different than creating a new fiscal problem--which, of course, is what the Republicans did throughout the Bush presidency.
Could the Democrats be doing more to put the nation's fiscal house in order? Sure. And there's reason to think they will. But they're already behaving much better than the Republicans did.
--Jonathan Cohn
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/07/17/orszag-letter.aspx
Morning all!
G'morning, Toni!
Obama is trying to do alot right away when he has the backing to do it. That's why he didn't want to wait on Health Care.
And as they were saying on Dylan's show this AM. He's not afraid to dive into the deep end of the pool.
He's got a newser scheduled for this Wednesday and I am sure it will be on health care.
Cat Chew, I've had Home Health Care after my knee surgeries. And it is needed and cheaper than going to a rehab hospital. It is desperately needed.
This new Health Care blog at the New Republic seems informative so far.
Here's another article about Obama's
IMAC or Independent Medicare Advisory Commission:
The IMAC Proposal: Obama's Answer on Cost Control
As discussed below, the administration is pushing its idea to create an "Independent Medicare Advisory Commission" that would set payment policies within Medicare, subject to approval by the President and Congress. The idea is similar to a proposal West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, has been circulating. Today, the administation formally submitted its proposal as a bill. Below is a letter from Budget Director Peter Orszag, explaining the proposal; it went to the leadership and relevant committee chairs in both houses. And below that is an official summary of the legislation:
As you are well aware, soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable--for both our families and our businesses. Moreover, the ever-increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid are among the main drivers of long-term budget deficits that are threatening our economic future. Fortunately, because of your hard work and the efforts of your colleagues, we are now closer to the goal of fiscally responsible health care reform than we ever have been.
LINK
Here's some info on the cost savings of a public plan:
The 6 Word Change That Could Save Health Care Reform And The Public Plan
Providing subsidies to help Americans afford health insurance is the single biggest cost driver in health care reform. The CBO calculates that the subsides in the House bill would cost $773 billion, and in the Senate HELP Committee bill they would cost $723 billion.
There are several ways to reduce the cost of those subsidies. You can further restrict who would qualify for subsidies, reduce the size of the subsidies, reduce what is considered minimum health insurance benefits, reduce the minimum actuary cost sharing, or change how you calculate the size of the subsidies.
Changing how you calculate the size of the subsidies seems to me the single best minor change to reducing the cost of health care reform. It would also dramatically strengthen the case for, and the cost savings from, a robust Medicare-like public option.
Currently both the House bill and the Senate HELP Committee bill calculate the size of the subsidies based on the “reference premium,” which is equal to “the average premium for the 3 basic plans in the area for the plan year with the lowest premium levels.” Lowering the price of the “reference premium” would dramatically reduce the cost of reform.
By simply redefining the “reference premium” to be equal to the premium of the lowest cost basic plan offered, it would substantially reduce the overall cost of health care reform. It would also dramatically increase the savings that result from the public plan proposed by the House Democrats.
The CBO concluded that the House's public plan would on average be “about 10 percent cheaper than a typical private plan offered in the exchanges.” It has also been reported that the public plan in its current form reduced the cost of the House's bill by $150 billion.
I'm assuming that since the public plan would be 10% cheaper it would reduce the size of the reference premium by 3.3%. I'm also assuming that the 3.3% reduction in the reference premium is responsible for the public plan reducing the cost of health care reform by roughly $150 billion.
If that is the case, redefining the “reference premium” to mean the premium of the lowest cost basic plan (which would be the public option) would farther reduce the cost of health care reform by roughly another $250 billion. Progressives should push for redefining the term “reference premium” as their solution for reducing the cost of the bill. It would not only produce dramatic savings but it would also make it harder to remove or change the public option in the House bill.
There is an expected change to the accounting rule dealing with Medicare payment rates, which would reduce the price tag of the House bill by $245 billion. Combined with the change I outlined above the cost of the House bill could be cut almost in half.
LINK
I heard on MTP Gregory let McConnell get away with mischaracterizing the CBO report. Guess it really is true what Gregory says about letting the guests control the conversation on MTP.
I say we kick him off the island. Anyone with me?
It seems I am hearing that report mischaracterized everywhere. So much for news ala chronkite
The closest we have to Cronkite now are Rachel, Keith and Laura on the tee vee machines.
I'd like to see MSNBC get to some more news focused programs, let Keith and Rachel drop the pop news drivel, give that it's own show.
Since Cronkite is gone, Rachel may take up that mantle since Kieth is sort Edward R. Murrow ish...
I don't either can be replaced but we can certainly use something other than the talking heads they are giving us now.
I agree Keith is Murrow lite, but I think Rachel is something new as is Laura Flanders. Laura is good about checking her ego at the door, we need a lot more of that imo.
Post a Comment