Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Drake Tungsten]

That summary is horribly wrong, but I wouldn't expect any better from a filosofer.

[Fake Boris]

Has there been any talk of reviewing how medicine faculties work?

[Drake Tungsten]

Congressional Democrats are using several budget gimmicks to disguise the cost of their health care overhaul, claiming the House and Senate bills would cost only (!) about $1 trillion over 10 years. Now that critics have begun to correct for those budget gimmicks, supporters of ObamaCare are firing back.

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019). Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).

Here’s where things get really ugly. TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.” Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number.

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion. That’s not a precise estimate. It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.

Beutler and other supporters of ObamaCare can react to this news in two ways. They can continue to deny the enormous cost of the legislation they support. Or they can question how President Obama’s health plan came to be so blessedly expensive, and how (and by whom) they were duped into thinking it wasn’t.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion/

[Ramo]

Jesus, that's a retarded article.

[Kidlicious]

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).

[Drake Tungsten]

Max Baucus agrees with Judd Gregg.

Senate Republicans highlight this line from Senator Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) floor remarks today:

"Just for a second -- health care reform, whether you use a ten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, wherever you start at, so it is still either $1 trillion or it's $2.5 trillion, depending on where you start…"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/baucus_admits_reid_bill_costs.asp

[SlowwHand]

[Kidlicious]

I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than single payer, but the plan that the insurance industry came up with is much better than either the house or senate plan. It's amazing how bad they have ****ed this up.

[Drake Tungsten]

Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate.

http://twitter.com/markos/status/6679156993

[Drake Tungsten]

Source: Dems Threaten Nelson In Pursuit of 60

While the Democrats appease Senator Lieberman, they still have to worry about other recalcitrant Democrats including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Though Lieberman has been out front in the fight against the public option and the Medicare buy-in, Nelson was critical of both. Now that those provisions appear to have been stripped from the bill, Lieberman may get on board, but Nelson's demand that taxpayer money not be used to fund abortion has still not been met. According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall into line.

Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a "naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson's vote." They are "threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?" asked the Senate staffer.

Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/source_dems_threaten_nelson_in_1.asp

I'd have more respect for this kind of hardball if it wasn't an obvious bluff. I wish I was on Nelson's staff so I could tell Rahm to go **** himself...

[Drake Tungsten]

Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill”

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.

Dean said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview, which is set to air at 5:50 PM today on Vermont Public Radio, political reporter Bob Kinzel confirms to me.

The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respsected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal. In an excerpt Kinzel gave me, Dean says:

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

Kinzel added that Dean essentially said that if Democratic leaders cave into Joe Lieberman right now they’ll be left with a bill that’s not worth supporting.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/

[Asher]

Can anyone briefly summarize what's going on now? I've ably evaded anything substantial on this whole mess but now it seems like it's going to pass.

Briefly, how many Americans are uninsured now? How many will be once the reforms pass? Will Americans still be going broke to pay medical bills (#1 reason for personal bankruptcy)?

And I'm serious, I'd appreciate a concise 'for dummies' summary...

[Drake Tungsten]

Can anyone briefly summarize what's going on now?

The public option was killed to win Joe Lieberman's support, which means that the left now hates the Senate's version of healthcare reform as much as the right does. Obama is now trying to get to 60 votes and ram the bill through before the Christmas break and seems like he has an outside chance of accomplishing it.

Briefly, how many Americans are uninsured now? How many will be once the reforms pass? Will Americans still be going broke to pay medical bills (#1 reason for personal bankruptcy)?

I'm not sure anyone knows. The bill has changed several times in the last couple weeks and there hasn't been a CBO score of the current version yet.

[The Mad Monk]

James DeMint, among others, has insisted that the Senate Clerk read Bernie Sanders' Amendment on the floor in its entirety. The Horror.

Senate GOP slowing health debate; forces reading of 767-page healthcare amendment
By Alexander Bolton and Tony Romm
The Hill
12/16/09 12:42 PM ET

Republicans have forced the Senate clerk to read aloud a 767-page amendment to healthcare reform legislation, paralyzing action on the chamber floor as Democrats approach a Christmas deadline.

Senate aides estimated that it could take 8 to 10 hours to read the massive amendment offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) objected to a request to dispense with the reading of the amendment, a courtesy that is almost always granted to fellow senators.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came under strong pressure from conservatives last week to do more to delay progress of the Democratic health bill.
…
Senators had been expected to vote on Wednesday but now the schedule is uncertain.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had hoped to file a motion to cut off debate on the healthcare bill by Friday so that the chamber could pass the measure by Christmas. But the new GOP procedural offensive raises serious questions over whether that timeline can be met.

Republicans have long threatened to use parliamentary procedure to slow down this year’s healthcare debate. A memo authored by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that surfaced last month reminded Republicans they could use such tactics as requesting an amendment’s full reading to keep Democrats from offering new amendments, voting on proposals that have already been offered or proceeding to a final vote on the healthcare bill.

“We, the minority party, must use the tools we have under Senate rules to insist on a full, complete and fully informed debate on the health care legislation – as well as all legislation – coming before the Senate,” Gregg wrote in that memo.

Ultimately, if Republicans continue invoking regular order and requesting the full reading of all amendments, Democrats could find themselves still locked in debate by Dec. 23.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/16/senate-gop-forces-reading-of-767-page-amendment-stalling-health-bill/

The assumption has always been that the most unpalatable portions of Obamacare would be added as amendments as the vote drew near. Republicans are now giving notice that all such amendments will be...problematic.

[Kidlicious]