Universal Health Insurance Coverage, new proposal

[ERD50]

It seems there is confusion about the terms "savings" and "deficit reduction". ...

The deficit reduction estimate is strictly a question of whether revenue increases will more than offset spending increases. The CBO says they will.

I realize that my wording could have been better for this example. Let me try again, w/o the word 'savings' in there:

I explained it to DW this way: Yes, I'm going to take out $300 on our HLOC to buy some techno-gizmo for myself. But not to worry, I'm going to take $400 out of your paycheck and put it towards our HLOC. So you see, by me buying this techno-gizmo, we have actually reduced our deficit by $100! Aren't you proud of me for deciding to buy this techno-gizmo!

So the deficit reduction claim is a matter of increasing government revenue more than increasing government spending. Fine, but mostly that is a shifting of money from within the same pile.

I think the govt reps know that when they say 'deficit reduction' to the general public, that public hears 'savings'.

Now, if there are really other savings to the public outside of the govt arena, fine. But the CBO would not count those in the deficit reduction number, would they? It is the deficit reduction claim I'm focusing on for the moment. This thing is complex, we need to break it down a step at a time, unless the intent is to daze & confuse.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

aren't we getting more for our money (a.k.a. "saving") if those 30MM people have insurance they wouldn't have otherwise had?

That is a great question that I am hoping you can answer.

Just remember, many of the pro-HC bill people point out that the insurance cos are just greedy profit making, overhead creating, no-value-added slime. So lets add whatever % number was used in other arguments to their cost of HC, and do we still save money by covering them this way? When those uninsured go to the ER, there was no ins co overhead, profit, etc.


-ERD50

 

[Retire Soon]

I was in the ER about a month ago for 5 hours of emergency treatment. My bill, which was $2,800 was paid in full by UnitedHealthcare (with the exception of a $100 copay). I believe that my insurance premiums are substantially higher than they would be otherwise because the hospital probably used a portion of this $2,800 to help pay for some of the people who showed up in the same ER that night who had no insurance coverage.

 

[Gone4Good]

That is a great question that I am hoping you can answer.

I don't think anyone has the answer to that question, but it is a reasonable conclusion from the following points (which I think are relatively uncontroversial).

1) People without health insurance have worse health outcomes than those that do
2) The legislation extends insurance to 30MM people who don't currently have it
3) The article Samclem linked to says that we'll spend the same amount of GDP on healthcare in 10 years regardless of whether the legislation passes or not.

 

[Gone4Good]

So the deficit reduction claim is a matter of increasing government revenue more than increasing government spending. Fine, but mostly that is a shifting of money from within the same pile.

We agree.

But I'd add that by definition reducing the deficit means moving money from the "borrowed" pile to the "not borrowed" pile. Most people see that as a positive.

 

[Rustic23]

Congress told the CBO that 'Pigs can Fly' then ask it how will this effect the price of pork. Same as telling them that Congress is going to cut $500 billion out of medicare, pigs can't fly, and congress won't cut medicare by $500 billion, however, the CBO has no choice but to score it like congress will do as it says.

Does anyone know if the original 'Doctors Fix' was a part of some CBO scoring? Like 'Congress is going to mandate a 20% reduction in medicare/medicaid doctors charges, what effect does this have on xxxx bill?'

 

[M Paquette]

But in the second decade the CBO says it reduces the deficit by $1.2T.

The 1.2 trillion dollar figure is a number that originated outside the CBO process. CBO stated that there was some uncertainty in the numbers that made a precise year by year estimate impractical, but did give a broad estimate of savings in terms of GDP. Commentators multiplied the GDP change out to arrive at the 1.2 trillion dollar figure.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10870/12-20-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction1.pdf

With this corrected reading, savings from changes to the Medicare program (along with other changes to direct spending that are not associated directly with expanded insurance coverage) would increase at a rate that is between 10 percent and 15 percent per year during the 2020–2029 period, compared with a growth rate of nearly 15 percent reported in the initial estimate. The long-run budgetary effects of the other broad categories of the legislation are unchanged from the initial estimate. All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates. The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies.

 

[Gone4Good]

The 1.2 trillion dollar figure is a number that originated outside the CBO process. CBO stated that there was some uncertainty in the numbers that made a precise year by year estimate impractical, but did give a broad estimate of savings in terms of GDP. Commentators multiplied the GDP change out to arrive at the 1.2 trillion dollar figure.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10870/12-20-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction1.pdf

That's good color. But they do, indeed, project that the legislation will result in deficit reduction in the second decade.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

That's good color. But they do, indeed, project that the legislation will result in deficit reduction in the second decade.

True, but how much credence do you give to forecasts 10-20 years out?

 

[travelover]

I predict that the new health care bill will only help half as much as its supporters claim it will. I also predict that the health care bill will only hurt half as much as its opponents say it will. I also predict that medical care costs will continue to rise at an unacceptable rate and eventually more drastic action will be required.

I also predict that anyone posting on this subject will not change a single person's mind*.



* or a married person's mind

 

[Texas Proud]

I don't think anyone has the answer to that question, but it is a reasonable conclusion from the following points (which I think are relatively uncontroversial).

1) People without health insurance have worse health outcomes than those that do
2) The legislation extends insurance to 30MM people who don't currently have it
3) The article Samclem linked to says that we'll spend the same amount of GDP on healthcare in 10 years regardless of whether the legislation passes or not.

Does it fix the problems you say?

1) They might have 'worse' outcomes, but how much worse? Could it be because they do not have insurance or they are in the lower social economic level who don't take care of themselves as much? I am not sure how much better they will be.

2) We will see. After the lawsuits and other things that take place, I doubt it will. It might provide the opportunity of covereage to 30 million more, but I would not say that there will not be a good number of uninsured people after (or when) this goes into affect.

3) The whole point was to reduce the amount that we were paying for health care... that is why I think the Dems got off track. They have always wanted to 'insure the uninsured'... or universal coverage... they kept talking about insurance reform, but the main objective of this legislation is universal coverage... and then some insurace reform... very very little cost reduction...



As for deficit reduction.... and this is something most people don't get... if we can raise funds to pay for X (which we will call universal coverage fot this).... they we can raise that exact same amount for Y (which I will call deficit reduction)....

SOOOO, if we just do the tax increases and do NOT do the spending... we can balance our budget and start to pay down the debt.

 

[FinanceDude]

Does it fix the problems you say?

It doesn't "fix" anything as written..........

As for deficit reduction.... and this is something most people don't get... if we can raise funds to pay for X (which we will call universal coverage fot this).... they we can raise that exact same amount for Y (which I will call deficit reduction)....

SOOOO, if we just do the tax increases and do NOT do the spending... we can balance our budget and start to pay down the debt.

When was the LAST TIME that happened in Washington D.C.??

 

[FinanceDude]

That's good color. But they do, indeed, project that the legislation will result in deficit reduction in the second decade.

I heard that about Medicare/Medicaid when it was passed 1965, turns out the govt was forced to admit in the 1980's that their "projections appeared to be underestimated"............

How many of the current uninsured are illegal aliens? It would never happen, but if we are to have universal healthcare, then my feeling is you need to be a US CITIZEN to have access..no freebies...........

 

[Bimmerbill]

Well, dang. I always said the last day I work is the day they pass universal health insurance.

I'll have to run a cost benefit to see if working is "worth it" now.

 

[samclem]

In another thread it was pointed out that (due to a Republican initiative), members of Congress would be subject to the new health care law. Unfortunately, the President and his cabinet members were overlooked in this area. Fortunately, one of the things being done to help improve the law is to require the President and cabinet officials to get their own health insurance through the new exchanges that are being set up. I think everyone can see the wisdom of this and should favor this senate amendment to the existing legislation. As expressed by Senator Grassley:

“It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

Initial attempts to insert this language into the original bill were unsuccessful, so it seems that now is the best time to get this done. This is one of the constructive steps now being taken to improve the legislation, and I know those who have called for a coming together of Republicans and Democrats will support this amendment as another effort to produce the best possible health care for the American people.

Here's the full text of his press release on the subject.

 

[clifp]

I predict that the new health care bill will only help half as much as its supporters claim it will. I also predict that the health care bill will only hurt half as much as its opponents say it will. I also predict that medical care costs will continue to rise at an unacceptable rate and eventually more drastic action will be required.

I also predict that anyone posting on this subject will not change a single person's mind*.



* or a married person's mind

I predict that TravelLovers predictions are the most accurate in the whole debate.

Now somebody fess up to having your mind changed.

 

[TromboneAl]

Well, dang. I always said the last day I work is the day they pass universal health insurance.

And I said that I'd make an appointment to see my doctor about my somewhat high blood pressure.

And Rush Limbaugh said he'd leave the country.

 

[REWahoo]

And I said that I'd make an appointment to see my doctor about my somewhat high blood pressure.

And Rush Limbaugh said he'd leave the country.

That reminds me, did that Baldwin guy ever move to Canada? No? Wonder what makes people tell such lies...

 

[youbet]

That's good color. But they do, indeed, project that the legislation will result in deficit reduction in the second decade.

I'd be happier if the projected deficit reduction had a larger component of reduced health care costs and a smaller component of higher taxes to pay for higher health care costs.

 

[youbet]

And Rush Limbaugh said he'd leave the country.

Not to defend Rush, I'm no fan. But he said he'd leave the country for medical care. He didn't say he'd leave the country to live someplace else full time. Now if he really follows through and participates in medical tourism, as is so often talked about on our board, will be interesting to note in the future.

I dislike political pundits on both sides of the propaganda war. But I dislike the media doing misleading editing or misquoting even more. They make the news such a joke.......

 

[Gone4Good]

In another thread it was pointed out that (due to a Republican initiative), members of Congress would be subject to the new health care law.

Really, the party that didn't cast one AYE vote in either the House or the Senate is claiming credit for something in the bill . . . really?

 

[Gone4Good]

Not to defend Rush, I'm no fan. But he said he'd leave the country for medical care.

Yeah, he said he'd go to Costa Rica . . . which has universal health care.

Almost as good as Glenn Beck saying he educated himself on the dangers of socialism by studying at the library . . . "where books are free".

 

[TromboneAl]

Costa Rica also has a public option.

he said he'd leave the country for medical care.

I agree, but it's ambiguous enough that you can pardon the misunderstanding. I'm posting this just 'cause it's funny:

CostaRica.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

 

[W2R]

Thanks for your participation in the discussion of the effect of the new health insurance initiatives on retirement. But now as we begin to veer off into other issues it is time for Porky to make his appearance...

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"