President Obama Lends His Voice to Chorus of Democrats Criticizing Congressional Budget Office Numbers

They should have called it 'major Kaiser bail-out proposals'

Kaiser has put out a side by side comparison tool for all the competing health care plans being discussed.

Google

Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals

Better that I pay $250 for a doctor's visit out of my pocket than I pay $100 in taxes for that doctor's visit, is that your argument?

Posted by: jhw539 | Jun 25, 2009 3:02:21 PM
---
Sorry, the doctor can't see you until August.

But you could go to a different doctor, but he won't accept Public Plan insurance, because it doesn't cover the cost of the procedure. That's what's currently happening to lots of Medicare and Medicaid users.

But I'm sure this plan will work just as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Health System. GOODY!

I'm looking for some simple numbers. How much money will we save by spending this $1 or 2 Trillion?

The fact that we're having to decide on how to PAY for the savings should be an indicator that it's not a cost reduction effort at all.

Ryan C- I guess the question is if you are with those who believe a government overhaul of healthcare that cuts government expenses must be payed for with increased taxes?

And we, you know, had two cars, but one of them was kind of beat up and we didn’t have a garage so you’d have to, in Chicago you gotta shovel your car out of the snow and scrape the ice," Obama continued. "And we didn’t know how we were going to afford college education for our kids ‘cause we had been paying down student loans for ten years between the two of us....
============

Sasha Obama was born in 2001. When Obama was worried about how to pay for kids college, living in a small condo, and driving a clunky car, he was making $259,000 +.

Interesting indeed, since today that makes him rich. Now back then, making those $$$ and he is "worried" about paying for college. Yet today, anyone making those kinds $$$ is now obligated to give more to the cause!

Verrrrry Interrrrresting.......

"I can't say I'm sure about your points, but if the above is true, that simply expanding government coverage of the uninsured is enough to lower taxes, what was the argument for raising taxes to pay for it"

That was not my point but Hadley's.

"The savings that will accrue from covering the uninsured will be primarily in the form of lower taxes to pay for government-funded uncompensated care, not lower premiums for private insurance."

-----------

I can't say I'm sure about your points, but if the above is true, that simply expanding government coverage of the uninsured is enough to lower taxes, what was the argument for raising taxes to pay for it?

Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 25, 2009 3:51:10 PM

Ryan, you are too funny! :)

Did you miss the taxes part? How about VAT taxes and the taxes businesses are forced to pass on to clients/customers, raised federal and state taxes, and as infinitum.... you are really a hoot! :)

More from Hadley

"Adding in taxes and health care costs changes the story. According to Hadley, "The savings that will accrue from covering the uninsured will be primarily in the form of lower taxes to pay for government-funded uncompensated care, not lower premiums for private insurance. These savings are a legitimate potential source of funding to help pay for expanded insurance coverage." The Kaiser study found that insured adults "spend about $350 per person through taxes, donations, and payments for private health care and private insurance to subsidize care received by the uninsured." That's close to Families USA's estimate of the average cost to insured singles. Kaiser didn't give a per-family estimate, but a $350 per person cost is generally consistent with a cost of $1,000 per family."

"Here's only one of many samples:"

From the American Spectator blog.

Some of you may remember the American Spectator for their decade long smear campaign against the Clintons.

"Editor Tyrrell travelled to Kazakhstan in 1999, along with several other conservative journalists, with his travel expenses paid for by the Carmen Group, a Washington D.C. lobbying firm paid by the authoritarian Kazakh government for PR work. Kazakhstan's president Nursaltan Nasarbayev had recently barred his most viable opponent from contesting a presidential election and shortly after sent the opponent into exile. Tyrell, contradicting the opinion of human rights groups and the US State Department, provided a substantially upbeat assessment as to the state of freedom of expression in Kazakhstan in a Washington Times op-ed after he returned from his trip. Neither Tyrell nor the other conservative journalists who reported on Kazakhstan disclosed that their expenses for the trip had been paid by the Carmen Group"

Their opinion is for sale to the highest right wing bidder.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to complain about the CBO numbers... there are much higher numbers being put out by other independent institutes... as usual, the WH/Congress really do not want to look at the consequences of their policies or their limits in 'fixing' problems. Here's only one of many samples:

Health Systems Innovations Network, a consulting group, went ahead and estimated the full cost of a bill that included the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, and reduced the number of uninsured by 99 percent. With these assumptions, they estimated the cost at a staggering $4 trillion over 10 years, resulting in the shift of 79 million Americans to government-run health care. The report does not include possible tax increases or spending offsets, but notes that, "this would be a challenging proposal to finance with budget neutrality."

President Obama, in a speech to the American Medical Association on Monday, declared of the price tag of health care legislation: "it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits."
UPDATE: I just spoke with Steve Parente, principal at HSI, who explained that the main reason why the group's estimate is so much higher than the CBO is that it assumes more people will buy coverage with government help. "We see a lot of people taking advantage of that subsidy, because it goes so far up the income threshold," Parente said. To be clear, 500 percent of the poverty level translates into income of $110,000 for a family of four. He also said HSI would revise the estimate if a new version of the legislation proposed new cost savings. However, he said it's difficult to estimate savings from the adoption of information technology and increased prevention. IT, for instance, could turn into an "unfunded mandate" on doctors and hospitals, while not all forms of prevention are created equal. Flu shots, for instance, are relatively cheap, but providing mammograms to some age groups can be quite costly.

It's interesting how much Team Obama would like to spin the numbers and want to ignore valid research in trying to sell their health care plan:

A 2008 report conducted by researchers from the Urban Institute for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation examined the first Families USA study, and found its claims to be unconvincing. They concluded: "[W]e are highly skeptical that the high and growing cost of private insurance is strongly related, if at all, to the amount of uncompensated care delivered by private providers or to the growing number of uninsured people.”

Jack Hadley, the lead researcher on the KFF study, told us that to assume that the insured end up paying for all uncompensated care is "clearly an exaggeration." According to KFF, the amount of uncompensated care that providers could shift to the privately insured is much less, only $8 billion, not the $42.7 billion Families USA said could be passed on to premium payers in 2008. The KFF number is less than 19 percent of Families USA's, and by our figuring that implies a per-family increase in health insurance premiums of less than $200 a year, not $1,000.

jhw539- for awhile I thought you worked for a foreign political group, but they have a far better grasp of politics. The problem is that the government funded systems are going bankrupt, not that there are families going bankrupt.

1)If the government takes in 1Trillion in taxes and spends it on an 'investment' that saves taxpayers 2Trillion, then instead of mandating a 1Trillion tax for healthcare (raising the total 'investment' to 3Trillion), the people should be mandating that the government pay out 1Trillion in Christmas tax bonuses.

2)If the doctor needs $250 per visit to stay in business, and the government only pays him your $100 (assuming, and this is a very long stretch of the imagination, that your $100 makes it all the way through the government system and back around to your doctor), then there will be even more doctors to fill the current shortage, is that your argument?

MarkLeavenworth:" there's no need to increase taxes to cover an investment that pays for itself."

And no need to have anyone control access to the common meadow, it belongs to everyone...

For a while I thought you might work for one of the conservative think tanks, but while they are quite partisan they have a far better grasp of macro economics.

If the government (empowered and funded by citizens) invests $1 trillion that saves it's citizens $2 trillion, that is a very good investment. But it does not pay for itself now does it?

Better that I pay $250 for a doctor's visit out of my pocket than I pay $100 in taxes for that doctor's visit, is that your argument?

Then, jhw, you don't need to increase funding to cut costs. And if there was some kind of 'investment' argument, there's no need to increase taxes to cover an investment that pays for itself.

MarkLeavenworth:"Do you live in a reality where you would call our medical system 'free-market'?"

Yes, our current health insurance system as free market as our food market. And FAR more relevant to the discussion, our system is the most free market of any of the first world nations. That -the comparative level of government involvement- is the fundamental basis of the benchmarking analysis that strongly suggests further government intervention would reduce costs.

The pitiful fact is that it's up to goods-producing China and the oil-producing Arabs to determine how much we can spend on healthcare.

And rather than carry on this side track with counter points of present value of 2002 dollars or combining Barak's income with Michelle, I'm satisfied the facts are adequately out there.
========

they are indeed.

And rather than carry on this side track with counter points of present value of 2002 dollars or combining Barak's income with Michelle, I'm satisfied the facts are adequately out there.
========

they are indeed.