Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The latest health-overhaul bill from the Senate will cost $829 billion over a decade and provide insurance coverage to 91% of U.S. residents, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The price tag for the Senate Finance Committee's sweeping health bill is in line with President Barack Obama's request that the overhaul cost about $900 billion over a decade and not add to the federal deficit. But the estimate of how far it will expand insurance coverage is lower than what Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) had initially targeted.

According to the CBO, the bill would reduce the federal budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.

The within-budget cost estimate paves the way for the Finance Committee to pass the overhaul bill as soon as this week, marking a significant step forward for the president's top domestic priority. Senate leaders will then merge it with another bill, from the Senate health committee, before taking it to a vote on the Senate floor.

Because the Finance Committee is more centrist, its bill is expected to form the backbone of any final legislation. It also is the only bill with the hope of winning the vote of any Republicans, with Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe seen as a possible supporter.

The bill gives tax credits to low- and middle-income Americans to offset the cost of buying health insurance and expands the Medicaid federal-state insurance program to cover a larger swath of the poor. Instead of creating a public-health-insurance plan, the bill calls for the government to fund a series of new nonprofit health insurance cooperatives designed to increase competition with private insurance companies. It gives doctors and hospitals incentives to improve the quality of their care and offer fewer unnecessary tests and treatments.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

The latest health-overhaul bill from the Senate will cost $829 billion over a decade and provide insurance coverage to 91% of U.S. residents, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The price tag for the Senate Finance Committee's sweeping health bill is in line with President Barack Obama's request that the overhaul cost about $900 billion over a decade and not add to the federal deficit. But the estimate of how far it will expand insurance coverage is lower than what Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) had initially targeted.

According to the CBO, the bill would reduce the federal budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.

The within-budget cost estimate paves the way for the Finance Committee to pass the overhaul bill as soon as this week, marking a significant step forward for the president's top domestic priority. Senate leaders will then merge it with another bill, from the Senate health committee, before taking it to a vote on the Senate floor.

Because the Finance Committee is more centrist, its bill is expected to form the backbone of any final legislation. It also is the only bill with the hope of winning the vote of any Republicans, with Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe seen as a possible supporter.

The bill gives tax credits to low- and middle-income Americans to offset the cost of buying health insurance and expands the Medicaid federal-state insurance program to cover a larger swath of the poor. Instead of creating a public-health-insurance plan, the bill calls for the government to fund a series of new nonprofit health insurance cooperatives designed to increase competition with private insurance companies. It gives doctors and hospitals incentives to improve the quality of their care and offer fewer unnecessary tests and treatments.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1254943 ... sNewsThird

Skjellyfetti wrote:Nice response, Native.

Any reason you are now when the CBO has been THE authority for Conks on this matter. When they came out with a negative report on a different health care bill a few months ago Republicans lauded the CBO for their nonpartisan, accurate report.

Why the change?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Nice response, Native.

Any reason you are now when the CBO has been THE authority for Conks on this matter. When they came out with a negative report on a different health care bill a few months ago Republicans lauded the CBO for their nonpartisan, accurate report.

Why the change? Is it that Rush's show doesn't air until tomorrow... so you don't have the updated talking points?

AZGrizFan wrote:So we're going to spend $900 billion over 10 years to extend coverage to 91% of Americans. Right now the number of "uninsured" varies between 30-45 million, or 10-15% of Americans. So we're going to spend $900 billion to extend coverage to another (at a maximum) 6% of Americans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just take those 15 million that we're now going to cover and GIVE each of them $50,000?

What am I missing here?

native wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:So we're going to spend $900 billion over 10 years to extend coverage to 91% of Americans. Right now the number of "uninsured" varies between 30-45 million, or 10-15% of Americans. So we're going to spend $900 billion to extend coverage to another (at a maximum) 6% of Americans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just take those 15 million that we're now going to cover and GIVE each of them $50,000?

What am I missing here?

Please do not confuse skelly with facts, espcially math facts. Not his thing. Can't feeeeeeeeel the math.

Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., himself admitted that “This probably sounds a little crazy to some people that we are voting on something before we have seen legislative language.” Indeed.

Baucus’ excuse - that it would take his committee staff two weeks to post the bill online – sounds a little crazy too.

Col Hogan wrote:This is great news.....let's go on line and read this legislation that will cover 91% of all Americans and reduce the deficit...

Wait....we can't.....Senator Baucus REFUSED to post the legislation on-line....it's TOO HARD, he says...

Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., himself admitted that “This probably sounds a little crazy to some people that we are voting on something before we have seen legislative language.” Indeed.

Baucus’ excuse - that it would take his committee staff two weeks to post the bill online – sounds a little crazy too.

So instead of seeing the legally binding legislation, we get the "Plain English" version only...WTF!!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 46377.html

SeattleGriz wrote:I heard today that the Baucus Bill will have 25 million uninsured. When you take out the 15 million illegals from the overall uninsured, is 25 million even an improvement?

SeattleGriz wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:This is great news.....let's go on line and read this legislation that will cover 91% of all Americans and reduce the deficit...

Wait....we can't.....Senator Baucus REFUSED to post the legislation on-line....it's TOO HARD, he says...



So instead of seeing the legally binding legislation, we get the "Plain English" version only...WTF!!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 46377.html

I heard today that the Baucus Bill will have 25 million uninsured. When you take out the 15 million illegals from the overall uninsured, is 25 million even an improvement?

AZGrizFan wrote:So we're going to spend $900 billion over 10 years to extend coverage to 91% of Americans. Right now the number of "uninsured" varies between 30-45 million, or 10-15% of Americans. So we're going to spend $900 billion to extend coverage to another (at a maximum) 6% of Americans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just take those 15 million that we're now going to cover and GIVE each of them $50,000?

What am I missing here?

CitadelGrad wrote:Some of the other things it does? It hasn't done a damn thing. It's all speculative.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:So we're going to spend $900 billion over 10 years to extend coverage to 91% of Americans. Right now the number of "uninsured" varies between 30-45 million, or 10-15% of Americans. So we're going to spend $900 billion to extend coverage to another (at a maximum) 6% of Americans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just take those 15 million that we're now going to cover and GIVE each of them $50,000?

What am I missing here?

You know the health insurance bill and Health Reform in general does A LOT more than provide insurance for those without coverage, right?

I even highlighted some other things it does for you in the article so you wouldn't miss them.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Some of the other things it does? It hasn't done a damn thing. It's all speculative.

It's not all speculative. If the bill is signed and goes into law... the proposals would be the LAW OF THE LAND. Incentives, tax breaks, etc. they cost money and would go into effect.

Most of the bill's funding comes from $404 billion in cuts to Medicare and other government insurance programs that Democrats say will reduce waste but won't hurt recipients' benefits. An additional $201 billion comes from a 40% excise tax on particularly generous health-insurance plans levied on insurers. The rest comes from annual fees on insurers, medical-device makers and pharmaceutical companies, as well as a series of other changes to the tax treatment of health expenses.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:So we're going to spend $900 billion over 10 years to extend coverage to 91% of Americans. Right now the number of "uninsured" varies between 30-45 million, or 10-15% of Americans. So we're going to spend $900 billion to extend coverage to another (at a maximum) 6% of Americans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just take those 15 million that we're now going to cover and GIVE each of them $50,000?

What am I missing here?

You know the health insurance bill and Health Reform in general does A LOT more than provide insurance for those without coverage, right?

I even highlighted some other things it does for you in the article so you wouldn't miss them.

AZGrizFan wrote:Anybody that thinks the cost of this thing is going to be even REMOTELY near the proclaimed price tag, I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Anybody that thinks the cost of this thing is going to be even REMOTELY near the proclaimed price tag, I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

Hey I offered them swampland first. Get in line. There's plenty of them to buy all we can sell but I get first shot at 'em.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Anybody that thinks the cost of this thing is going to be even REMOTELY near the proclaimed price tag, I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

Hey I offered them swampland first. Get in line. There's plenty of them to buy all we can sell but I get first shot at 'em.