The Congressional Budget Office issued a report November 30 prepared in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Taxation. Among other things, the report states (bottom of page 4):
"CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law."
Got it. That outcome is financially WORSE than doing nothing.
And who are the people who buy “nongroup policies”? They’re individuals. A great many of these individuals are uninsured. The uninsured are the very people who need the most help. But the Senate Bill will increase the premiums that the uninsured would have to pay to get medical insurance they already can't afford. Does this make sense?
I think even more important, the effect of the Senate Bill on medical insurance premiums tells us that the cost of medical care would also be greater under the proposed law, than under current law. That’s because the cost of insurance is driven by the cost of medical care. In other words, the Senate bill does bend the cost curve. It bends the curve UPWARD.
The November 30 report goes on to say (still on page 4):
"About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law."
The administration and Senate leadership selected this comment for their great “AHA!” on Monday – AHA!! CBO proves us right! The premium per participant will reduce under the Senate Bill!! [they said]
Sure - - after the subsidy.
So you tell me. Will it cost taxpayers more to subsidize the more-expensive medical care caused by bending the curve upward ? Or will it cost taxpayers more to subsidize the less-expensive medical care we have now? C’mon, it’s an easy question.
I’m not saying we should be satisfied with what we’ve got. What we’ve got is far too expensive and it’s far too inefficient. The current “system” not only drives people nuts, it drives doctors nuts and payers such as the government, small employers, and large employers nuts, too. We need to change it. But the Senate Bill will give us no better than we have now, at higher cost.
The Senate leadership wants to stick a feather in its cap, and call it macaroni. But CBO says not so fast. Thanks to CBO, the information before the public is now clear and settled fact. It is wrong to assert that the Senate Bill will save money, or will be “budget neutral”. It will instead cost much more than doing nothing, and will not accomplish the very things we understand are most important.
By the way, remember when candidate Obama promised a health care plan that would save every American family $2,500 a year? I’d like to know, where the heck is THAT plan?
A couple of weeks ago, we reported on a federal health panel's new recommendations regarding when and how often women should get mammograms. The panel's findings had ignited a pretty fierce firestorm among women's health advocates, and was widely denounced. Our take was that it didn't portend well for those who think that government-run health care would be such a perky idea.
But what struck me as even more disturbing was this admission by one of the panel's esteemed members:
"The recommendation about breast cancer screening for women 40 to 49 did not say what the task force meant to say. The task force communication was poor."
No kidding.
One is tempted to believe, however, that it was merely the fact that they were called out on their recommendations that caused them to backpedal; if the information hadn't been widely disseminated in both the old and new media, how many women would now be facing mammography rationing?
As we noted in our original post, this might have had even farther reaching impact, in that insurance carriers might have been encouraged to approve fewer mammograms. Fortunately, this hasn't turned out to be the case, as we see in an email notice I received yesterday from UHC:
"UnitedHealthcare Mammography/Cervical Screening Guidelines Remain Unchanged ... We consider mammography an important screening procedure, one that has resulted in the ability to detect and treat breast cancer at earlier stages of the disease and save lives."
The release goes on to note that UHC will continue to cover mammograms as recommended by its insureds' physicians, and that employers with self-funded plans may modify their plans to include this coverage if they don't already do so. What's also heartening is that the carrier notes that, "the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently changed its recommendations for cervical cancer screening, advocating less frequent screening for women in their 20s. However, UnitedHealthcare is not changing its coverage policy on cervical cancer screening."
Inasmuch as Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are firmly in the crosshairs of ObamaCare, this video may soon be rendered moot. But since they're still alive and kicking - so far - this latest video in the Humana "Good to Know" series [ed: that's our name for them] provides a good background on what they are and how they work:
And how does this arch-conservative justify these outrageous comments?
Well, he points out, without a thought of how unlikely this might be, that all the tax increases start in Year One of "The Plan," but that expenditures don't actually occur until Year 5.
Over the years, we've chronicled the various pitfalls of RomneyCare (aka MassCare). Long on promises, short on delivering on those promises, it's a glimpse into the (possible) future of how a national health care system would fare. Now, though, the fit has really hit the shan:
Hospitals are generally taking major hits as their reimbursement rates continue to fall. In this case, the Bay State's much-touted health care initiative has left them reeling with lower reimbursements and unpaid bills. Of course, that's a direct result of the program's own struggles to control costs.
Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the half-dozen plaintiffs are among those truly at the bottom of the rung:
"[H]ealth care providers known as “disproportionate share hospitals,’’ institutions at which at least 63 percent of patients ... are covered by public insurance plans such as Medicaid or Medicare."
That last is important: "covered by public insurance plans." It doesn't seem much of a leap to substitute "public insurance plans" with "Public Option," and a whole new can of worms becomes accessible. Whom do the hospitals sue when it's the Feds?
RELATED: Over at Ace of Spades, an intriguing discussion of health care as "supply side" driven. This insight is worth more than a passing thought:
"In the US system, there is a theoretically unlimited amount of health care available, you just have to be willing to pay for it.
You've just the nailed the fatal flaw of the Democrat's health care reform; it isn't reform at all, it's simply more regulation ... real reform would involved increasing the supply of doctors, medicines, and hospitals. ObamaCare does just the opposite, it focuses entirely on demand." [italics in original]
[Welcome OpenCongress readers!] [ed: I've bumped this to the top of the page because it's important. To quote P J O'Rourke: "If you think health care's expensive now, just wait 'til it's free."]
H.R. 3961 passed the House last week by a vote of 243-183. This bill was formerly a part of HR 3962 “Obamacare”. Here’s a link to the voting by Yea and Nay, by Democrat and Republican, and by Not Voting.
This bill would block the 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement to physicians, scheduled to take effect in January 2010. The bill would instead increase physician payments in 2010 based on the Medicare economic index, and implement an entirely new formula for 2011 and after. That’s a pretty big swing – minus 21% to plus something. So it has a significant cost. This bill was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as costing about $210 billion when it was part of Obamacare. So the House leadership, bless their hearts, seeking to reduce the cost of Obamacare, just made it go away. Like magic, the cost of Obamacare was reduced by $210 billion. But like reality it's back as HR 3961. I think this illustrates how governments - anyway our government – anyway most of our Representatives - pretend that charging us more is really a savings. It’s also a pretty good insight into how gullible they think we are.
Wait, there’s more.
The bill would entitle physicians to more than a 20% increase in Medicare reimbursements relative to CURRENT LAW.
But if physicians will become entitled to 20% MORE in 2010, the 2010 Part B cost will be higher than CBO projected and that means premiums are too low even after that whopping 15% increase. The Part B premiums for 2010 need to be a lot higher. Would that happen? Heck no, it’s too late in the year to change the premiums. So the government (that means the taxpayers) would eat the entire additional cost. Medicare participants won’t pay higher premiums than already announced. That is, in 2010 they won’t. But come 2011, CMS will again calculate the Part B premiums, taking into account the new physician reimbursements, and Seniors will suffer another whopping increase to their Part B premiums.
Now go back to the link again. See that reference to “pay-as-you-go budget rules” in the top paragraph? That means this bill is not funded. So its cost adds to the US deficit.
Oh yeah, about the voting on HR 3961:
242 of the 243 yea votes were Democrats.
172 of the 183 nay votes were Republicans.
Scroll down, yeah keep on scrolling, keeeeep on, until you reach “Not Voting”
There you find the name of NANCY PELOSI. Third in line for President, exercising her precious right . . . NOT to vote. What th- ??
Please don't you be like Nancy. Stand up for something constructive. Tell your senators what you think of this Bill. Call their offices. They're probably not all that busy this week anyway.
