CBO: Health-care reform bill cuts deficit by $130 billion/10 years

[jriley1349]

The just-released non-partisian Congressional Budget Office analysis of the reconciliation bill being considered before congress indicates that comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $130 billion in the federal deficit over the same period.

Stated another way, this bill costs around $94 billion/year, in a ~4 trillion budget. It projects that it will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over a 20 year period.

The report also indicates that the bill extends Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years and reduces the rate of its growth by 1.4 percent, while closing the doughnut hole for seniors, meaning there will no longer be a gap in coverage of medication. The CBO also estimated it would extend coverage to 32 million additional people.

... that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.

In July 2004, the same CBO concluded that the Medicare Part D bill would "increase mandatory outlays by $407 billion for fiscal years 2004 to 2013 and would raise federal revenues by $7 billion over that period." And, "would increase deficits--or reduce surpluses--by $394 billion over the 2004-2013 period" In other words, it was a vote to add about $400 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and trillions more in the decades after that.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5668&type=0&sequence=1

Just for the record: Let it be said that the Repubs who voted for Medicare Part D, which the CBO projects will INCREASE the deficit by $400 billion.....are opposing this health reform bill - which DECREASES the deficit by $130 billion in 10 years (and "maybe" $1.2 trillion in 20 years).

And the same Repubs are attributing their opposition (in large part) to "fiscal responsibility."

[darrels joy]

has a total cost of $940 billion

[jriley1349]

Originally Posted by darrels joy

has a total cost of $940 billion

That was stated in the first paragraph.... also stated in the first paragragh:

...leading to a reduction of $130 billion in the federal deficit over the same period

A handy comparison chart of features put up by Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc..._20090912.html

[darrels joy]

irrevelant, data from September 2009

[jriley1349]

Read it again...the date below the title is: March 18, 2010

and....

the far right column on the table is labeled:

President Obama's Plan -- Feb. 22, 2010

...which is what the CBO scored today.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc..._20090912.html

[darrels joy]

We still pay the cost to the government to give us more government and pay for insurance for some people.

We don't like many aspects of this bill. The cost is only part of the problem.

[darrels joy]

CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion

BY Jeffrey H. Anderson

March 18, 2010 6:36 PM




The CBO’s most recent analysis is out, and it’s not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence. Even the Democrats are granting that the latest version of their proposed health care overhaul would cost $69 billion more than the previous version. According to the CBO, this version would siphon even more money out of Medicare, make even further cuts to Medicare Advantage, and levy even higher taxes and fines on the American people.


President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and their allies, are cheerfully citing “ten year” costs of $940,000,000,000.00 — apparently believing this to be a far more palatable figure than $1 trillion. But even this colossal tally is like the introductory price quoted by a cell phone provider. It’s the price before you pay for minutes, fees, and overcharges — and before the price balloons after the introductory offer expires.

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare.

If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs. The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor?

According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

How would we pay for all of this? According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion. Among the Medicare cuts would be cuts of $25,000 in Medicare Advantage benefits per enrollee — up from $21,000 in the previous scoring. To be clear, those living in South Florida wouldn’t have to worry about this, as the newly politicized nature of health care would cause them to be exempted. These cuts would affect only less-fortunate seniors, namely those living in just about any other part of the country.

We’d also pay for this through increased deficits. Under strict instructions from the Democrats, the CBO gave Obamacare credit for over $400 billion (from 2014 to 2023) in phony “savings” that would allegedly result from cutting doctor’s payments under Medicare by over 20 percent and never raising them back up. As the CBO notes, one of two things could happen: Congress could either follow through on these severe pay cuts — in which case doctors would view all Medicare patients as if they have the plague — or, Congress could eliminate these pay cuts — as everyone in Washington expects to have happen under the so-called “doc fix” — in which case the CBO projects that this bill would raise deficits by over $100 billion from 2017 to 2019 alone.

So, after racking up higher deficit spending in two years than President Bush (or any other president) did in two terms, President Obama would leave his successor a 12-figure deficit related to Obamacare alone — for the period from 2017 to 2019 alone. That’s according to the CBO.

And what would we get for all of this?

The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance.

When the House votes on Obamacare, probably this weekend, it will do the following: Most likely all in one motion, it will vote on whether to pass the Senate bill — or, more likely, on whether to “deem” it passed — and on additional language. Should the House pass the Senate bill, it would be enacted the second that it went to the president and his pen touched the page. At that point, the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” “Gator Aid,” and all the rest, would become the law of the land. The additional language would be passed on to the Senate. The new CBO score is for the whole ball of wax — for the Senate bill, which would immediately become law, plus the new language, which wouldn’t. Clear as mud?

Meanwhile, President Obama is continuing to meet with wavering House Democrats, offering them rides on Air Force One and almost unimaginable combinations of other incentives and disincentives. Members of Congress report that, when they sit across from him in close quarters at his invitation, he says to them, “Help me make history.” In Jerry Maguire, the character played by Cuba Gooding Jr. famously says, “Help me help you.”

For Obama, it’s “Help me help me.

The latest CBO score should help wavering Democrats to resist the president’s plea and listen anew to the pleas of their constituents. Two trillion dollars is a lot to spend on something that Americans don’t want.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-...ver-2-trillion

[darrels joy]

the dramatic improvement of healthcare for Americans

[darrels joy]

Immigration Proposal Will Blow Out All HCR Cost Estimates


Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham have put forth the outlines of an immigration plan, which has been endorsed by Obama as the basis for immigration reform.

While there is no legislative text, as described by Schumer and Graham, the key is that illegal aliens automatically would gain legal status if they followed certain steps:

For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.

Assuming the eventual legislation followed this path, the key point is that illegal aliens automatically would be turned into legal aliens from the moment they enter the system. They may have to wait for "lawful permanent residence" but they would not be here illegally anymore.

There are tremendous implications of this automatic change in status for the pending health care bill, which appears headed for a vote Sunday.

The Senate health care bill, which is the foundation of Obamacare, treats legal aliens on par with citizens when it comes to the health care exchanges.

The key phrase is "an alien lawfully present in the United States," which bestows upon such person all the benefits of the exchanges as a "qualified individual" (emphasis mine):

Sec. 1312(f)(3) ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS.—
If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange. [pg. 161]

This same term, "an alien lawfully present in the United States," is the term used in section 1401 providing tax credits (emphasis mine):

(2) LAWFULLY PRESENT.—For purposes of this section, an individual shall be treated as lawfully present only if the individual is, and is reasonably expected to be for the entire period of enrollment for which the credit under this section is being claimed, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States. [pg. 253]

Similar language applies to the "reduced cost sharing provisions" of section 1402 (pg. 266).

The CBO cost estimates (which themselves are based on falsely rosy assumptions) do not take into account the more than 10 million people who will fully participate in the exchanges and receive subsidies (depending upon income) automatically if the Schumer-Graham proposal became law.

The Schumer-Graham proposal, which is endorsed by Obama, is just another warning sign that the CBO cost estimates are pure fantasy.

Buyer beware.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...w-out-all.html

This will add 10 MILLION people to the number covered with health care. I don't want to pay for them!

Joy

[darrels joy]

Jim Clyburn Explains It All
Then again, if the CBO can't do its job, the Democrats who are leading this effort can certainly try. Blogger Tom Elia notes that in an interview on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," Jim Clyburn--the No. 3 House Democrat, behind Steny Pelosi and Nancy Hoyer--explained exactly how ObamaCare is going to save the taxpayer money. Elia has the video, and the exchange starts at 1:30, but we thought it worth transcribing:

Chuck Todd: Can you explain how you get a trillion dollars in deficit reduction? I mean, the CBO didn't make it very clear. Do you feel like you understand how it is this bill somehow reduces the deficit by a trillion dollars in those out years?fficeffice" />>>

Clyburn: I think I do. What we are squeezing out of this system--remember, Medicare is a big part of this. We're extending the life of Medicare by nine years, and if you're taking the waste, fraud and abuse out of this, the savings that you get there will come as things grow. Savings will grow. You look at the community health centers. Savings will grow more in out years than in the first few years. So I believe--well, that's my assessment, and that's the way I'm explaining it to members. I hope I'm right.
>>
Savannah Guthrie: But Congressman, you know, speaking of actually the first 10 years, I think when ordinary Americans look at this and they hear this is a bill that will cost $940 billion but will reduce the deficit $138 billion, they don't understand how those two things go together. Can you just explain how you have to spend almost a trillion dollars to save $138 billion?>>

Clyburn: Well, because--sure. If you look at, as I said, the kind of savings that you build into the system, what it will save the federal government when you get people into these private insurance plans--the cost-shifting, all of that, out of the system. So if you got 32 million people coming onto insurance plans, that's 32 million people coming out of emergency rooms; that's 32 billion [sic] people that you don't have to pay for in all the cost-shifting that takes place in the system. When my wife had bypass surgery, I looked on her bill. We paid $15 for one aspirin. Then that takes all of that out of the system, and that's how you get that kind of savings, when you multiply that by the number of people that are getting primary care out of emergency rooms, you won't be doing that. That's the kind of stuff.>>

Heck, who needs the CBO? It's all so clear now!