Washington (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday unveiled a sweeping health care bill that would expand health insurance coverage to 30 million more Americans at an estimated cost of $849 billion over 10 years.Reid and other Senate Democrats cited an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for the coverage and cost figures. The CBO estimates the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion over the next 10 years, through 2019. Any effect on the deficit in the following decade would be "subject to substantial uncertainty," but probably would result in "small reductions in federal budget deficits," according to the CBO.
Great (eyes-rolled).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=331a5c69-be31-4722-9e36-f106bff4a21b)
...just wait till that ticker starts rolling. that 849's going to look like a joke.
incidentally, that's $236/person/month, based on the stated price, 30 mill people, and 10 years.
One could do a lot with $236/month: my 'catastrophic' insurance costs about $60/month. That is all that 99% of relatively healthy people need (when you tell a doctor that you have catastrophic insurance, and a $10,000 out-of-pocket cost prior to insurance kicking in, they will often give you a reduced 'cash' price to pay). My wife's is even less than that, around $40/month...according to the BS BMI measurements, I'm "obese," though I'd have to be 178 pounds to be a "normal" weight. BMI is crap when you work out, or are just a muscular person in general.
We have an HSA with catastrophic coverage ($5,000 deductible for the family annually) for $300/month for a family of five, two of whom are no longer spring chickens. We always receive a network discount for care (usually 40-60% off), we can go to any doctor we want and don't need referrals for specialists. Of course if anything close to this stupid bill passes, our premiums will go way up.
Holy cow, Shawn and Julia, I need to look into that!!!
I'm sure you are just a muscular person in general, Shawn.
And no kidding, that 874 bill is like a pebble, these things always increase. Ugh.
I don't understand how in a time of economic constriction this would be so stringently promoted.
julia; why do you think it would go up? I'd be willing to bet that what happens is, perhaps it goes up initially, somewhat, but eventually it will come back down to something pretty close to what you're at now. the problem is that that will happen because there will be an over-investment in health-care provision, and so the more useful investments that should/would have happened will be squandered (relatively).
that's the general pattern w/ subsidies, at least...maybe there's a mitigating circumstance that I'm not considering.
Well (not being an economist, of course) I figured on a couple things: 1. Increased regulation on insurance would raise systemic costs and drive some/many out of the insurance business altogether, leaving fewer competitors (this is the case in Maine, where my sister lives, and their premiums are outrageous) 2. Any hint of "public option" would drive more consumers to government run health care, decreasing the consumer base over which the insurance risk is spread, again raising costs for those of us who don't want public medicine. I may be missing something, but I don't think the main thrust of the bill is handing out government money to healthcare providers: I think it is mainly about limiting profit for both insurance companies and healthcare providers (especially doctors).
I admit, I've avoided learning anything about the health nonsense; it just makes me angry, and I've got about enough anger to fill me right up. :)
Your two points make sense.
I'm with you on the anger:) Perhaps the plan is to subsidize Prozac and Valium for those of us who believe in limited government.
No, but seriously, Shawn and Julia, where do you get your health coverage? Is that the price you pay on your own or is it subsidized by your employer?
My mom just lost her job and is losing her insurance at the end of the month.
Thanks!
We haven't had health insurance through work since 1997. Our current HSA/catastrophic plan is through Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield (which is in Maryland). Try www.ehealthinsurance.com to search for competitive rates (I swear I don't work for them). Unfortunately, rates vary a great deal by state b/c of varying regulations, which is why allowing competition over state lines would greatly reduce prices.
Don't be too afraid of a high deductible. We are a family of modest income. My oldest daughter spent 5 days in the hospital at the end of last year (long, scary story but she is fine now, praise God). Naturally, that sucked up the rest of our deductible. However, we just gave the hospital as much as we could afford to initially, and they offered us a very affordable payment plan to take care of the rest. No interest, no credit damage.
"that's $236/person/month, based on the stated price, 30 mill people, and 10 years."
Un. believable.
Can someone explain how we are supposed to reduce the deficit by SPENDING more money? I'm not math major, but this doesn't make sense to me.
brad; w/o reading the CBO report (which is probably available online, but good luck finding it w/o some serious google-fu), I couldn't tell you for sure: I'd guess some of the supposed $ benefits would be due to lives saved or illnesses avoided, thereby avoiding lost productivity.
cost/benefit analysis is a crock of crap; ex post rationalizations for programs you already wanted.
Judy, mine's through blue cross/blue shield as well.
Julia's story about hospitals/doctors working w/ you on payment is quite common, from the anecdotal evidence I've seen elsewhere.
I think I read that when Medicare was rolled out in 1965 the projected cost for 1990 was 12 billion. In reality by 1990 it cost over 100 billion. So that lets us know how accurate those projections are. I think Shawn is right, a lot of the savings are supposed to come from preventative care, which is a nice thought until you start factoring in how many healthy people will be getting lots of diagnostic tests and then end up never getting sick. That does not translate into "net savings."