Revised Senate health bill cuts deficit: CBO

[cal04]

Source: Reuters

The revised healthcare overhaul in the Senate would cut the federal deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, non-partisan budget analysts said on Saturday.

The Congressional Budget Office also said the bill as revised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would have coverage costs of $871 billion over 10 years.

Both figures meet President Barack Obama's goal of cutting the deficit and having a total cost of about $900 billion over 10 years. The rosy report card could help the proposal gain support.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091219/bs_nm/us_usa_healthcare_cbo_1

---

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10868


Senate HCR Bill - New CBO Score on Reid's Manager's Amendment
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/19/816770/-BREAKING:Senate-HCR-BillNew-CBO-Score-on-Reids-Managers-Amendment-

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. The single payer score? The MC buy-in score?

[WriteDown]

2. Yay!

Who knew that giving money to insurance companies cut the deficit? :shrug:

[Lerkfish]

4. because now OUR OWN PERSONAL money is used for the subsidy

[KansDem]

28. Agreed!

I thought the same thing when I read the headline... We're being "taxed" again...

[gtar100]

3. Whoopee! Let's all die to cut the deficit.!!

After all, who can afford to make a nation healthy when we've got wars to fight.

Priorities, folks. Priorities. War, war, war. After all, we're Americans!!!

Remember to sacrifice today so you can live in Heaven tomorrow.

So, good on Obama for cutting the deficit. Never mind that bloody, fucking war!

[earthside]

5. Think about this ...

The repeal of the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption is not in the Senate bill.

Antitrust Terms Out Of Health Care Bill - National Underwriter

There will be no language in Senate health care legislation repealing the antitrust exemption currently enjoyed by health and medical malpractice insurers, an aide to the proposal’s chief Senate sponsor confirmed today.

In reaction, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association said the group was glad the amendment was gone from the bill but warned, “The battle’s not over.”

“We expect this issue will heat up again next year, and it’s going to take the entire industry being united to oppose this in the final bill,” added the spokesman, Blain Rethmeier. ...

This means, as I understand it, that the mega-insurance corporations can openly and legally collude on how to subvert, find loopholes, repeal, get around, merge, etc. any restrictions and/or regulations in the law. They could spend millions and millions to thwart any efforts to enforce the so-called "health care reform" -- at both the federal and state regulatory levels.

When you think about it, this alone ought to be enough to kill this bill.

[w4rma]

6. So, the Nelson/Lieberman bill cuts the deficit by over $750 Billion **LESS** than the P.O. version.

Those **!@#$ing** 'moderates' say they want to cut the deficit, but they are nothing but liars and con-artists!

[NJmaverick]

7. This is great, it will make the GOP look even worse

[bc3000]

8. I was thinking that too

*insert republican senator here* voted against lowering the deficit!

[WriteDown]

9. Probably not. If this bill passes, which looks likely...

then things are going to get worse. A LOT WORSE. And you'll have dems as the ones supporting it. Mandates with no public option. Genius. :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

10. I guess the insult and rolling eyes were to cover your lack of facts

No worries after years of fighting right wingers I can handle this tactic. Back up your claims or admit they are just your unsubstantiated opinions.

[WriteDown]

17. Who is supporting this monstrosity of a bill? Who will be the Yeas?

There you go.

[bc3000]

14. Why should I care?

I'll be in jail for being unable to afford mandated insurance. I think I'll be able to get at least basic health care in prison.

[WriteDown]

19. Its your own fault..

For not being able to pay your mandated insurance. :)

[Uncle Joe]

11. I disagree, the Republicans and their corporate media allies

will paint it as a back-door tax increase on those making less than 200-250k, something that candidate Obama pledged not to do.

The bill as I understand it; mandating the purchase of private for profit "health" insurance is a disaster on all fronts; whether it be efficiency, functionality, economics, morality and politically.

[NJmaverick]

13. How do they do this?

More importantly has is requiring the purchase of health insurance immoral? Is it also immoral to require car or home insurance?

[bc3000]

15. There's a difference.

There is no federally mandated car or home insurance as far as I know. Most states require that. I believe this will be the first case of the federal government mandating the purchase of a product from a private company.

[WriteDown]

20. Are you required to have a car or house?

I'm working on astral projection, but I think I'm still stuck with a body and have little choice in the matter.

[NJmaverick]

22. Are hospitals required to help you when you get sick

or are they allowed to let you die on the street?

[WriteDown]

23. Yes, they are...

Every emergency room is required to help you. Not sure what that has to do with being required to pay a private company for insurance. Don't see many Romney-care supporters on DU.

[Uncle Joe]

24. It's inefficient because

instead of one standard, doctors and hospitals must waste precious time, energy and resources just keeping up with the myriad insurance forms and collection. The most efficient system would be Medicare for everyone from the cradle to the grave.

It's dysfunctional and uneconomical because the dynamics of a profit driven "health" coverage system with it's preeminent focus on making profits, cost of advertising, and paying off Congress, can only drive medical care costs up.

It's immoral because no industry having nothing to do with health care should profit, much less leech monies away from the cause of the American Peoples' health care. Why should stockholders, CEOs etc. have a government sanctioned monopoly and be allowed to not only gamble on but drive the costs of the American Peoples' health care up?

Actually it is immoral to require car or home insurance but less so for several reasons, generally speaking becoming ill, injured, living and dying is not a choice. When you drive a car on the street, you put other people at risk from the daily endeavor of driving, also if you finance your car or home there is legitimate case for protecting the interests of the finance or mortgage company.

As for your first question, how do they not do it?

[madmx19790]

12. Great. We get screwed again.

[nightrain]

16. gosh and who would have thought that the purpose of health care is

to lower the deficit!?

[cal04]

18. Budget office: Democrats' bill covers 94 percent, Removes ‘Botax,’ Adds Tanning Tax

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_BUDGET?SITE=NEYOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Congressional budget scorekeepers say the latest Democratic health care bill would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the federal deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office said Saturday the changes announced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would cut the deficit by an additional $2 billion, bringing the 10-year total reduction to $132 billion.

The nearly $900 billion bill would be paid for by $483 billion in cuts to Medicare and other federal health programs, as well as tax increases.

(snip)
It would leave 23 million people still uninsured in 2019.


(snip)
Amid pressure from doctors, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to remove a proposed 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery in the health bill that was expected to raise $5 billion over a decade. In place of what was known as the Botax, he added a 10% tax on indoor tanning services.

The change is a victory for the American Medical Association, which urged lawmakers to remove the cosmetic-surgery tax after Sen. Reid included it in a draft of the bill he unveiled in November. The medical industry argued that the tax effectively discriminated against women, since they’re more likely to undergo such procedures.

The tanning tax is part of a last-minute package of amendments that are expected to be included in the final bill. It grants an exception for “phototherapy” services that are performed by licensed medical professionals.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/19/senate-bill-removes-botax-adds-tanning-tax/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

[WriteDown]

21. You have GOT TO BE KIDDING!??!?!?!?!??!

:grr:

[hadrons]

26. "he added a 10% tax on indoor tanning services" ...

jeez, John Bohner will go broke

[Plucketeer]

25. This is sad news to my ears.

We're gonna have a health care plan for the sake of laudits for the president - nothing more, as far as we (the people) are concerned.

[optimator]

27. they need to define "cutting the deficit"

there is no such thing as "the deficit."
do they mean this year's budget deficit as a starting point?
if it "costs" $900 billion, then how is it "cutting" anything?
why does it cost a fucking penny for taxpayers?
what ARE the costs?
I'm tired of the semantics games.

[LaPera]

29. CBO also reported both the Public Option & the Medicare "buy-in" would also cut the deficit so this

watered down, weak pro insurance company bill (it's certainly NOT reform) should be scraped for either the Public Option or the Medicare buy-in, or both!

[Hulk]

30. Wow....saves money? That's like a "tax cut" right?

To the dim witted right wing neocon/fascist party, that's a plus, no? Maybe some of the repukes will vote for this bill in the end? They are such a pathetic party of scum sucking, low lifes.