Possible Breakthrough on Healthcare Bill

[Sphere]

Senator Bacchus' says his committee has reached a compromise on most issues. The CBO's anaylsis of the current draft fullfills four key points.

1.) The price tag over the next ten years is less than $900 Billion
2.) It is budget neutral
3.) It will lead to coverage for 95% of Americans
4.) It will "bend the cost curve" of healthcare spending, creating a budget surplus by 2019

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, who is leading efforts to develop a compromise health care bill announced Wednesday that negotiators had pared the price-tag to under $900 billion over 10 years and that lawmakers had agreed on ways to cover the cost.

Figuring out how to pay for the legislation, which seeks to broadly expand health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, had been among the most difficult tasks facing the bipartisan team trying to put together a deal. But Mr. Baucus said a new Congressional Budget Office analysis offered “good news.”

“C.B.O. has reviewed a draft of the health care reform bill we are currently negotiating,” he said. “Keep in mind the current draft does not include resolution of several key issues. Nevertheless, the report is encouraging. The current draft of the bill scores below $900 billion over 10 years, covers 95 percent of all Americans by 2015 and is fully offset.”


By fully offset, Mr. Baucus means that the legislation would not add to the national debt but rather the cost of the bill would be covered through a combination of savings, mostly by reduced spending on Medicare, and new taxes.”

And, in a small coup for the Senate negotiators, Mr. Baucus said the new analysis showed that in 2019, the legislation would actually reduce the deficit – a sign that lawmakers had included provisions that would slow the steep rise in health care spending, what President Obama calls “bending the cost curve.”
Late Tuesday, Mr. Baucus had hinted that his group had mostly finished their work on how to pay for the bill. “The costs, I think, are pretty well nailed down,” he said.

Is this a possible breakthrough that can bring enough moderates on board to pass healthcare reform?

[Wilder]

2.) It is budget neutral

how the hell is that going to work?

[Erik]

how the hell is that going to work?

By cutting spending on existing programs like medicare and by raising taxes.

(says so in the article)

and it still leaves millions without health care, 95% with means 5% without, with a total population of 304 million (as of 2008) that leaves just over 15 million uncovered, in that case why bother doing it at all?

I agree.

I thought the whole point was to get universal (ie: 100%) coverage?

Who is this 5%?

[danzig]

I thought the whole point was to get universal (ie: 100%) coverage?

Who is this 5%?

No doubt the ones who need it the most. I like the new avenue of 'attack' against opposition to this specific plan with released info that the government has "secretly' been rationing healthcare already thru medicare/cad so opposition to this reform is flawed since this will make the rationing better! Classic packaging of a pile of crap to look better then it is.

[nopasties]

[Downey]

I thought the whole point was to get universal (ie: 100%) coverage?

Who is this 5%?

maybe they dont know the definition of "universal"

[JP226]

there going to tax healthcare I'm guessing

[justicar5]

and it still leaves millions without health care, 95% with means 5% without, with a total population of 304 million (as of 2008) that leaves just over 15 million uncovered, in that case why bother doing it at all? Or is that the point sabotage the bill so that apssing it becomes pointless? Just what the Republicans and their blue dog allies want. It would not surpirsee me if this 'compromise' is to force people to buy from the private insurers, the same insurers that wont actualy insure sick ppl and do their best to avoid paying out for anything.

[Darth Red]

The costs, I think, are pretty well nailed down,”

Thats reassuring. I cant help it, i'm sorry. I did read someone suggesting the model of the Government Employees Heath Coverage for all Americans, or at least make it avalible to everyone. At the risk of double posting, I had copyed and pasted the article in the thread...Does everyone MUST have heath insurance... It was post #65

[Hiero of Syracuse]

Well that's for the poster to decide, but I don't see why this bill should be passed if a big chunck of the population, refuse to get it, they are circumstances that warrant assistance, but I do want others best interest at heart, I just feel horrible by denying them their chance because I'm content with what I have.

[Sphere]

I thought the whole point was to get universal (ie: 100%) coverage?

Who is this 5%?

You can't force people to sign up. Even Mass., which has a "universal" system that fines people for not signing up to some plan, still has ~5% (IIRC) who opt out.

This is because you have to set an income cieling for subsidies. Just above that cieling you have people who aren't poor enough to qualify for subsidies, but not well off enough to be inclined to purchase coverage. You can always move up the cieling, but it will become exponentially more expensive, as you include more and more people who would be willing to buy coverage out of their own pocket, instead taking government help.

[Erik]

You can't force people to sign up. Even Mass., which has a "universal" system that fines people for not signing up to some plan, still has ~5% (IIRC) who opt out.

A truly universal system shouldn't need a sign up procedure.

If you're a citizen,you should be covered.

This is because you have to set an income cieling for subsidies. Just above that cieling you have people who aren't poor enough to qualify for subsidies, but not well off enough to be inclined to purchase coverage. You can always move up the cieling, but it will become exponentially more expensive, as you include more and more people who would be willing to buy coverage out of their own pocket, instead taking government help.

No you don't need an income ceiling.

Why shouldn't Bill Gates be entitled?
For starters he'll pay a lot more in taxes than he'll likely ever get out in medical expenses.

IMO income ceiling are retarded, it just causes extra bureaucracy and annoyance by people who pay (through their income taxes) but don't get anything in return.

[Kjertesvein]

Compromize of what started out as a compromize. Great.

[Sphere]

I am talking about practical solutions that are being proposed in Congress, not an ideal system.

[Erik]

I am talking about practical solutions that are being proposed in Congress, not an ideal system.

What's not practical about covering every citizen automatically?
Isn't that what they do in Britain?

I think America's biggest problem with projects like this is that they over-complicate things.

btw: are rich kids banned from public schools too?
Do 5% of American children not get educated because they are too rich for public school and not rich enough for private school?

[Sphere]

What's not practical about covering every citizen automatically?
Isn't that what they do in Britain?

No offense, but the US healthcare industry ($2.4T) is larger the the GDP of the entire UK.($2.14T). That's not something you can reform overnight. Especially when ~80% of the public are happy with there current coverage.

Do 5% of American children not get educated because they are too rich for public school and not rich enough for private school?

Much more than 5%. Getting public school drop out rates down to 5% would be a miracle. But more to the point, the US doesn't have public hospitals in the same way it has public schools. All hospitals are essentially private, except the military ones. Nationalizing the entire health system is not an option.

[Erik]

No offense, but the US healthcare industry ($2.4T) is larger the the GDP of the entire UK.($2.14T). That's not something you can reform overnight.

That of course make no sense.
Exactly BECAUSE it's so big it would make sense to keep it as simple as possible.

Much more than 5%. Getting public school drop out rates down to 5% would be a miracle.

Wow, so a large part of Americans can't afford education for their Children?
No wonder things are going downhill there.

[JP226]

Public education tex, PUBLIC.

[Sphere]

If the US could start from scratch, I would also prefer a single-payer system, but thats not the case.

Wow, so a large part of Americans can't afford education for their Children?
No wonder things are going downhill there.

It is also an area that needs reform, (40% of black men drop out of school) and actually was a part of the last presidential elections. Basically public schools are paid for by property taxes, meaning if you live in a poor neighborhood, your school will be underfunded. I know some communities that have voted to cut all funding to schools, and kids have to go elsewhere. Even the "public" university I went to only recieved 17% of its budget from the state.

[B5C]

I just hope the blue dogs can hold this off.