Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CBO: a strong public option would save an additional $85 billion (doesn't include consumer savings)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 11:20 AM
Original message
CBO: a strong public option would save an additional $85 billion (doesn't include consumer savings)

Winning the argument

by Jed Lewison

Congress Daily reports new CBO estimates show a strong public option would save an additional $85 billion compared to a weak one:

In a bid to wrangle concessions from the Blue Dog Coalition on healthcare reform, House leaders Thursday released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., a Blue Dog co-chair, said any possible new momentum toward a public option tethered to Medicare rates is, in part, "because of the cost issue" and the updated CBO score.

The original House bill required the public plan to pay providers 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates. But as part of a package of concessions to Blue Dogs, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted an amendment that requires the HHS Secretary to negotiate rates with providers. That version of the plan will save only $25 billion.

In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion more than earlier estimates, a spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi said.

As Ezra Klein writes, the CBO scoring only reflects the savings to government -- there would be additional savings to consumers.

Moreover, the CBO is estimating savings to the government. That is to say, the $85 billion reflects reduced federal spending on subsidies because premiums in the public plan will be lower. Savings to individuals and businesses paying lower premiums will be much larger than $85 billion, and politically, much more important.

Those who oppose the public option -- Republicans and a diminishing group of Democrats -- really are on the wrong side of this debate. The public option isn't about creating an expensive new government program that would give Ronald Reagan nightmares -- it's about making health care insurance cheaper and better for more people.

The public option is a simple idea, it's a good idea, and it's popular. There is no reason it shouldn't happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. Has this been reported by the corporate electronic cable media....?
cause I haven't heard any of this on them as of yet.....
although I do limit my watching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Still haven't seen it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ok, but what about the insurance industry profits??? How much will they lose??
Don't be so selfish, the insurance corporations are people, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. They won't lose any profit! They won't have to insure all those people with pre-existing conditions
like domestic violence victimization and old age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well shit, I was hoping they would lose out big.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. If they decide to tether it to Medicare and open it to everyone...
including subsidies and employer contributions for those that don't qualify.

This *could* end up being a masterful reform in the context of the USA.

One of the initial qualms I had about this reform is that so many conditions had to be fulfilled for a fundamental change, and without them, the mandates could actually make things worse. Ill be really impressed if the Democrats actually get all the ducks in a row and pass this with a Medicare-lite PO that will have measures that make it affordable for ALL Americans. I guess people can hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC