Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Breaking News: CBO Says Senate Health-Care Bill Would Reduce Deficit

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
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:33 PM
Original message
Breaking News: CBO Says Senate Health-Care Bill Would Reduce Deficit
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 03:35 PM by jefferson_dem
CBO: Baucus bill costs $829B/10Y, cuts deficit by $81B, reduces uninsured by 29 mil

http://twitter.com/wonkroom

A bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee would cost $829 billion over the next decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday, and would meet President Obama's goal of reducing the federal budget deficit by 2019.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/?referrer=email


Preliminary Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman’s Mark As Amended

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have just issued a preliminary analysis of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman’s mark for the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, incorporating the amendments that have been adopted to date by the committee. That analysis reflects the specifications posted on the committee’s Web site on October 2, 2009, corrections posted on October 5, and additional clarifications provided by the staff of the committee through October 6. CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.

Among other things, the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other changes to the Medicaid and Medicare programs and the federal tax code.

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million, leaving about 25 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the proposal, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. Roughly 23 million people would purchase their own coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and there would be roughly 14 million more enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP than is projected under current law. Relative to currently projected levels, the number of people either purchasing individual coverage outside the exchanges or obtaining coverage through employers would decline by several million.

Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10 year budget projection period (2010 through 2019 currently), Senate rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. However, a detailed year-by-year projection, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great. CBO has therefore developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 10-year budget window by grouping the elements of the proposal into broad categories and assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time.

All told, the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $12 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. After that, the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansion. Consequently, CBO expects that the proposal, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.

These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments. The projected savings for the proposal reflect the cumulative impact of a number of specifications that would constrain payment rates for providers of Medicare services. The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed or not fully implemented. (If those changes arose from future legislation, CBO would estimate their costs when that legislation was being considered by the Congress.)

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good. So they can afford to add a public option...
which will supposedly reduce the deficit anyway!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. and what about the other bills?
Or are they doing their bit to knock a public option out of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. You are correct. They are trying to get this out in front, so it knocks the PO
out.

Let's say you add the PO and it reduces the savings down to 20B. Then they'll back the bill without the PO ignoring the fact that the 20B in savings is better in the long run because we have a public option.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Except the PO actually reduces the deficit as well
That means we can afford a robust PO under any plan considered.

Hearts Xultar. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. This is great news - overall and for the public option.
The Baucus version is paid for with plenty of room ($81 billion worth) to plump up the subsidies, etc. Indications are including the public option will only help the cost numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. The other bills will be combined with this one...
or the BEST parts-like the public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, I guess they will take this and run with it even tho' no public option and giveaway to
insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Nah. They'll take this and change it in committee...
most likely adding a public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. But The Baucus Bill wouldn't help anyone other than the insurance companies. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. mixed feelings...
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 03:38 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Had the finance bill scored as adding to the deficit it might have thrown all the cards so high in the air it might have made it difficult to pass anything this year.

On the other hand, this will gin up further support for the Baucus bill as the responsible "grown-up" approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. This is nothing but good news. It shows that reform can save dollars...
We want that. Now...we go in for the kill with an even more deficit-friendly PUBLIC OPTION.

If CBO had panned the Baucus POS, it would have taken the air right out of the reform balloon. I have no doubt about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I am glad it scored well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimWis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks for the news. I wonder if they will ever score HR 676 as
they promised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Baucus bill still sucks, but this will help move the process along
Nobody really has a Plan B if the Baucus bill is defeated in committee, which could throw the whole process into chaos.

So, right now it's best to just pass his shitty bill in committee and clean it up on the Senate floor and in conference committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. Previous CBO reports show that a public option will reduce the deficit
So adding a robust public option to the Baucus plan is a win win. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. BINGO.
I will hereby affix this mental image to anyone trying to spin this into bad news

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Yes-
the Baucus bill wasn't expected to have a PO. But now the bills go into conference where the PO can and probably WILL be added.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. If not, it should be defeated.
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 03:46 PM by MNDemNY
No (STRONG) public option...NO BILL. ("probably" is NOT good enough)

And, we are a LONG way from this "going to conference"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. It WILL have one. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Good, but if not........to the trash heap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. And if so...to the President's desk!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Yup
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ej510 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. What kind of public option?
It could be a useless pile of dung or a robust public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'd love to believe this is going to help the PO, & not be used against it.
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 03:48 PM by rudy23
If we see any Dem. politicians arguing that we don't need a public option because the Baucus bill cuts the deficit without it, can I affix something worse than the Debbie Downer pic to your posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. You have my permission to hurl tomatoes their way...
and fart in their general direction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. Im well practiced with half of that
Now I have to go buy some tomatoes and I'll be ready.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ind_thinker2 Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. Great news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. Great! Now about that CBO score on single payer .............
Months and months after announcing they would score it as an alternative, its still MIA.

But Baucus's Boondoggle gets a score in a couple of weeks....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Funny how that happens, isn't it?
We should be demanding they score single payer. Just to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rmp yellow Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. When will the CBO tell us how much, if any, the single-payer bill would reduce the deficit?
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 03:54 PM by rmp yellow
They are dragging their feet for some reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
26. Yeap, KKKons are jumping on the band waggon now sense it'll reduce the deficit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
27. So, they are trying to drum up support for the Baucus debacle?
Single payer or public option will do the same, if not better.
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 Sun May 05th 2024, 03:28 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