Report: Health costs up slightly under Senate bill

[onehandle]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Americans would see only a modest rise in health care costs under the Senate's plan to extend coverage to 34 million people who currently go without health insurance, government economic experts say in a new report.

The study found that health spending, which accounts for about one-sixth of the economy, would increase by less than 1 percent than it otherwise would over the coming decade even with so many more people receiving coverage.

Over time, cost-cutting measures could start to reduce the annual increases in health care spending, offering the possibility of substantial savings in the long run. At the same time, however, some of the Senate's Medicare savings could be unrealistic and cause lawmakers to roll them back, according to Medicare's top number crunchers.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the report released Saturday shows the Senate bill would slow the rate of health care costs, strengthen Medicare and provide millions more people with insurance coverage.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care

[dkf]

1. So much for bending the cost curve. Costs will be higher than if we do nothing.

Ironic

[Unvanguard]

4. ...because millions more people will be covered, yes. n/t

[Texastornado]

7. But didnt Obama promise $2,500 savings a year in premiums for the typical family?

What\\\'s going to happen to that promise?

[Unvanguard]

16. I have no idea of the specific status of that promise. But this report has nothing to do with it.

It's total cost, not cost per family.

[grytpype]

8. "even with so many more people receiving coverage."

even with so many more people receiving coverage.

even with so many more people receiving coverage.

even with so many more people receiving coverage.

even with so many more people receiving coverage.

even with so many more people receiving coverage.

[Texastornado]

10. We were told it would be affordable. We werent just promised an expansion of number of insured

Wheres the affordability?

Is Obama on record promising that costs would go up slightly?

[grytpype]

11. Right, like I've been saying, the libs want free health care.

It's not going to be free.

[Texastornado]

12. Not free. Just $2,500 a year less in premiums

Which is what Obama promised during the campaign: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/

[nightrain]

17. please cite a source. That's not at all my experience. Try to be accurate.

[ThomCat]

23. Haven't you been hearing the words "affordable health care"

used constantly? Where is the "affordable" in this?

They threw affordable out the window because the only way insurance companies will agree to saving money is by cost cutting in government programs.

Insurance companies refuse to cut their expenses. Even the measure limiting their profits to "only" 15% is a joke because 15% is a huge profit margin for a corporation, and as pundits have already been on tv saying, there are many ways to cook the books so that profit doesn't look like profit, so that they can have much more than 15% profit.

[nightrain]

19. it's not affordable, by any stretch of the imagination.... None of

the current proposals actually address the issue of the cost of premiums, high deductibles, unreasonable copays, etc. Congress is throwing more money at a dysfunctional sinkhole.

[ThomCat]

25. And that is the way they intended it to be. From the begining

their goal was not to cut costs, but to see costs rise more slowly. So they intended for costs to keep rising, just at a slower rate.

That doesn't help all of us who are already sinking under outrageously high medical costs. It only helps wealthy people who can afford the current costs.

This was one of the concessions that Obama promised the insurance industry to get them to the table, unnecessarily. :(

[izquierdista]

2. Cut costs, increase coverage?

Sounds like an insurance company's dream.

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

3. First Step...

... get this done. (as disappointing as it may be to many of us, there's too much good stuff to scrap it)

Second Step: Get rid of health insurers anti-trust exemption -- THAT will bring costs down...

[Unvanguard]

5. "Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!"

:eyes:

[Exultant Democracy]

6. So we trade a reasonable house bill for a waste of a senate bill. I'm glad I worked so hard getting

dems elected.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exultant Democracy]

15. I've never voted for Kucinich what I have done is work my ass off across 7 swing state

in the last two election cycles. Coordinating GOTV programs where I have run staffs organizing over 11k volunteers at any one time. I take a break from my regular high paying position every other year to make next to nothing and work 116 hour weeks.

What have you done?

I earned my right to be pissed off.

[ThomCat]

24. I didn't see that post before it got deleted

but from your post it looks lit it said that anyone who supported for Kucinich doesn't have any right to an opinion.

A lot of good democrats support Kucinich because he is ahead of the curve, representing what people really want instead of what corporations want. Apparently that really pisses off the apologists around here.

Thank you for all the volunteer and low-pay work you do, but please don't validate the idea that supporting Kucinich is something bad.

[Odin2005]

13. Kill this fucking bill.

[TomCADem]

14. This Is The Same Report Being Issued Again and Again With The Assumption...

That cost savings will never materialize because Congress will intercede and raise costs AND the increased number of insured will place additional burdens on the system. If you apply these assumptions to single payer, then single payer also comes out looking bad.

This "study" keeps on getting circulated as "new" again and again to each iteration of the HCR bill, and it always concludes that costs increase because (1) more people are covered and (2) Congress will abrogate cost containment features in the future.

[nightrain]

18. The price of premiums is artificially high, having to pay that ~30% overhead. That

bills included subsidies is an acknowledgment that the premiums are too expensive, that the Fed Gov't (actually we, the people) has to subsidize the corporations. There's just no reason for the premiums to cost $5K or more/year except to pay the corporations' overhead (exec compensation, claims deniers, advertising, etc).

Recall that those enormous exec compensation packages are money from denied claims. Insurance corporations don't provide health care. Insurance corporations don't provide one physical exam, well-child exam, immunization, psychotherapy session, PT visit, immunization. Insurance corporations make money by denying care. That's how the execs get so rich.

Insurance is for accidents, not routine care.

[FreakinDJ]

20. So its just like MORE TAXES for MIDDLE CLASS

Wow - Who Would Da Thunk It

[Jackpine Radical]

22. I'd post something in agreement here, but

I've had enough of battling the cheerleaders around here for one day.

[RBInMaine]

21. Oh screw the RePUKES.