Gutted Senate Bill Costs $849 Billion

[Stronghold]

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

[/quote]

CBO has said preventive care is actually more expensive.

“Cheaper treatments” means the government forces you to take the cheapest option, even if it is less effective. The exact thing that the “fact-check” crowd was screaming wouldn’t happen.

[dhickey]

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

[/quote]

lowering insurance premiums - How?
focusing on preventive care - How?
Cheaper Treatments - How?

These would all be fantastic. I just don’t see how this bill accomplishes any of this. I can see it raising premiums for those that actually pay them, raising taxes, and adding yet another layer of bureaucratic oversight and process that will increase cost of treatment by competing for time and shrinking supply.

[dhickey]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
“Cheaper treatments” means the government forces you to take the cheapest option, even if it is less effective. The exact thing that the “fact-check” crowd was screaming wouldn’t happen.[/quote]

This is key. There is a huge difference between making specific treatments cheaper and eliminating more expensive options. I don’t have a problem with the later if they do create a public option. If I am going to subsidise some anonymous persons care, they get the cheapest care.

Arificially capping prices for specific procedures will only create shortages for those procedures. Econ 101.

No good can come of this legislation. Anyone that claims otherwise is ignoring or incapable of comprehending long term cause and effect.

[anonfactor]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

CBO has said preventive care is actually more expensive.[/quote]

Really? Do vaccines cost more than the diseases they prevent? Does preventing a heart attack with pharmaceuticals cost more than the surgery needed after one? I don’t see how that would be the case, but if you have a source for your statement I would like to read it.

“Cheaper treatments” means the government forces you to take the cheapest option, even if it is less effective. The exact thing that the “fact-check” crowd was screaming wouldn’t happen.

Not exactly. Perhaps I should have said “cheaper drugs” to avoid confusion. The government, depending on how many people buy-in to the public option, has some leverage to negotiate price with drug companies. If we could get the same drugs cheaper, wouldn’t that lower overall medical costs? Would you be against this?

Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing this bill has going for it.

[anonfactor]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

lowering insurance premiums - How?[/quote]

Competition from public option. Admittedly, this would be very weak.

focusing on preventive care - How?

Covering more people so they could get checked out more frequently and avoid the emergency room.

Cheaper Treatments - How?

Negotiated rates with doctors and hospitals, but it could have been more.

These would all be fantastic. I just don’t see how this bill accomplishes any of this. I can see it raising premiums for those that actually pay them, raising taxes, and adding yet another layer of bureaucratic oversight and process that will increase cost of treatment by competing for time and shrinking supply.

I take your point, especially considering that most of the penalties will be effective before the public option would be. If only the Republicans were a more constructive force than just belligerent opposition, this could have been a better bill.

Edit: Estimates are that the bill will save us $100 billion in 10 years now, sounds more realistic.

[Stronghold]

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

CBO has said preventive care is actually more expensive.

Really? Do vaccines cost more than the diseases they prevent? Does preventing a heart attack with pharmaceuticals cost more than the surgery needed after one? I don’t see how that would be the case, but if you have a source for your statement I would like to read it.

“Cheaper treatments” means the government forces you to take the cheapest option, even if it is less effective. The exact thing that the “fact-check” crowd was screaming wouldn’t happen.

Not exactly. Perhaps I should have said “cheaper drugs” to avoid confusion. The government, depending on how many people buy-in to the public option, has some leverage to negotiate price with drug companies. If we could get the same drugs cheaper, wouldn’t that lower overall medical costs? Would you be against this?

Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing this bill has going for it. [/quote]

First result for “CBO preventative care” on Google:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html

Second result:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

[anonfactor]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

CBO has said preventive care is actually more expensive.

Really? Do vaccines cost more than the diseases they prevent? Does preventing a heart attack with pharmaceuticals cost more than the surgery needed after one? I don’t see how that would be the case, but if you have a source for your statement I would like to read it.

“Cheaper treatments” means the government forces you to take the cheapest option, even if it is less effective. The exact thing that the “fact-check” crowd was screaming wouldn’t happen.

Not exactly. Perhaps I should have said “cheaper drugs” to avoid confusion. The government, depending on how many people buy-in to the public option, has some leverage to negotiate price with drug companies. If we could get the same drugs cheaper, wouldn’t that lower overall medical costs? Would you be against this?

Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing this bill has going for it.

First result for “CBO preventative care” on Google:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html

Second result:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf[/quote]

Alright, preventative care is more expensive; however, you agree that the bill will save us $100 billion over 10 years?

On a side note, what do you (or conservatives in general) propose we do about health care?

[dmaddox]

Is it true that doctors do not have the ability to opt out of this Public Option? I think a doctor should have the right to opt out and not take this inusurance like the do with Medicare. I have heard that some doctors only accept Medicade on certain days. Maybe they will only allow the public option insurance on certain days. Get them in get them out. I think that is very fair. You no pay you no get special treatment.

[dmaddox]

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

lowering insurance premiums - How?

Competition from public option. Admittedly, this would be very weak.

focusing on preventive care - How?

Covering more people so they could get checked out more frequently and avoid the emergency room.

Cheaper Treatments - How?

Negotiated rates with doctors and hospitals, but it could have been more.

These would all be fantastic. I just don’t see how this bill accomplishes any of this. I can see it raising premiums for those that actually pay them, raising taxes, and adding yet another layer of bureaucratic oversight and process that will increase cost of treatment by competing for time and shrinking supply.

I take your point, especially considering that most of the penalties will be effective before the public option would be. If only the Republicans were a more constructive force than just belligerent opposition, this could have been a better bill.

Edit: Estimates are that the bill will save us $100 billion in 10 years now, sounds more realistic.[/quote]

Republicans have tried to make the bill better, but when the speaker controls what is actually put forth to the floor these options never get a chance. When the entire opposition has closed door meetings and do not include you how do you put forth options. The left would be more constructive then just bribing for votes we would have a better bill. Better yet why dont they allow the American People to vote on this final bill since it is such a polarizing bill.

We need a leader that will actually lead. We have not had one in a really long time. Put the people first and not the special interest groups first. Unions are considered special interest groups.

[Stronghold]

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

CBO has said preventive care is actually more expensive.

Really? Do vaccines cost more than the diseases they prevent? Does preventing a heart attack with pharmaceuticals cost more than the surgery needed after one? I don’t see how that would be the case, but if you have a source for your statement I would like to read it.

“Cheaper treatments” means the government forces you to take the cheapest option, even if it is less effective. The exact thing that the “fact-check” crowd was screaming wouldn’t happen.

Not exactly. Perhaps I should have said “cheaper drugs” to avoid confusion. The government, depending on how many people buy-in to the public option, has some leverage to negotiate price with drug companies. If we could get the same drugs cheaper, wouldn’t that lower overall medical costs? Would you be against this?

Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing this bill has going for it.

First result for “CBO preventative care” on Google:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html

Second result:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Alright, preventative care is more expensive; however, you agree that the bill will save us $100 billion over 10 years?

On a side note, what do you (or conservatives in general) propose we do about health care?[/quote]

Revoke the anti-trust exemptions held by insurance companies, tort reform, and allow hospitals to deny service to those without health insurance or a means by which to pay for treatment.

[dhickey]

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

lowering insurance premiums - How?

Competition from public option. Admittedly, this would be very weak.
[/quote]
Many of them are running insanely low profit margins. The only way premiums drop this way is if they start denying more claims or excluding treatments.

If you want to lower insurance premiums, take out barriers for competition and separate it from employment. Premiums are high because health care consumption is up and the consumer is not price shopping. You want to know why premiums are high, just ask the others in you pool. Look at what they make claims for. Look at what is covered in your plan. You might not be making claims against unnecessary treatments, but others in your pool are.

Washington doesn’t want to lower insurance premiums. If they did, it wouldn’t be that hard.

focusing on preventive care - How?

Covering more people so they could get checked out more frequently and avoid the emergency room.

At what cost? Have you seen how much this is going to cost and how many will remain uninsured?

Cheaper Treatments - How?

Negotiated rates with doctors and hospitals, but it could have been more.

If it is only for the public option I hardly see how this is going to make a difference. Also, if a doctor is seeing a patient with gov’t insurance and knows he is going to be underpaid for certain treatments, you think he’ll try and avoid those treatments? You need to look past the obvious. You need to look at what motivates people and how they will behave when put upon by outside sources. you should also rethink using the term “negotiated”. You really think that’s what’s going to happen?

[quote]
I take your point, especially considering that most of the penalties will be effective before the public option would be. If only the Republicans were a more constructive force than just belligerent opposition, this could have been a better bill.

Edit: Estimates are that the bill will save us $100 billion in 10 years now, sounds more realistic.[/quote]

This is silly. It’s not going to save us anything. A good portion of the uninsured that go to emergency rooms will still be there by the CBO’s own admission. Your tax dollars will still cover a portion of that. The rest will be covered in the cost of treatment to those that can pay.

Cuts they are promising in other programs are ridiculous. That money will be back into those programs in the blink of eye. You really think they are going to make PERMANENT cuts to medicare and medicaid? Please.

You also need to look at what happens after their selected time period. I give you a hint. There are no saving even with their ridiculous cost cutting lies that are supposed to cover this.

[anonfactor]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
dhickey wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Don’t you find it a little disingenuous to say the bill is going cost $849 billion when it is supposed to save $800 billion in the next 20 years? If I made $100 on a $1000 investment, is it misleading to say I lost $1000?

Don’t get me wrong, the bill has major flaws, but at least be honest about why you dislike it.

how is it going to save 800 billion?

Presumably how any health care reform measure would: by lowering insurance premiums, focusing on more preventive care, cheaper treatments, etc., but I’d be surprised if it saved half of the projected amount in the bill’s current state. I doubt it gets passed.

lowering insurance premiums - How?

Competition from public option. Admittedly, this would be very weak.

focusing on preventive care - How?

Covering more people so they could get checked out more frequently and avoid the emergency room.

Cheaper Treatments - How?

Negotiated rates with doctors and hospitals, but it could have been more.

These would all be fantastic. I just don’t see how this bill accomplishes any of this. I can see it raising premiums for those that actually pay them, raising taxes, and adding yet another layer of bureaucratic oversight and process that will increase cost of treatment by competing for time and shrinking supply.

I take your point, especially considering that most of the penalties will be effective before the public option would be. If only the Republicans were a more constructive force than just belligerent opposition, this could have been a better bill.

Edit: Estimates are that the bill will save us $100 billion in 10 years now, sounds more realistic.

Republicans have tried to make the bill better, but when the speaker controls what is actually put forth to the floor these options never get a chance.[/quote]

Really? They were powerful enough to get the last bill without the public option killed, why can’t they offer constructive reforms in this bill or offer their own version of health care reform? In fact, all they have done is disperse misinformation and delay.

Where’s “revoke the anti-trust exemptions held by insurance companies, tort reform, and allow hospitals to deny service to those without health insurance or a means by which to pay for treatment”, to quote Stronghold, in the Senate bill? Also, the revoking of anti-trust exemptions was put in the House Bill by Democrats.

When the entire opposition has closed door meetings and do not include you how do you put forth options.

The Dems have 60 votes in the Senate and the White House, but have at every turn desired bipartisanship. If they really wanted exclude Republicans, they would have stuck in single payer and gone through reconciliation.

The left would be more constructive then just bribing for votes we would have a better bill.

What do you mean, they should have let the bill die?

We need a leader that will actually lead. We have not had one in a really long time. Put the people first and not the special interest groups first. Unions are considered special interest groups.

I agree with you here.