1. Will reduce the deficit
2. Will drastically expand health care coverage
3. Will not interfere with employer-based health insurance, for those who have it.
And now…
4. Will save families thousands of dollars on premiums.
That’s according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and MIT’s Jonathan Gruber [courtesy of Politico]. For people who are currently buying their insurance on the individual private market, the plan in the Senate Bill could save up to $2,600 per year for a single person, and up to $7,800 per year for a family of four.
I know that some are opposed to health reform because they think the private insurance industry should be in control of everything. But let’s be honest — if the insurance industry could (or would) create these sorts of savings, wouldn’t they have done it already?
Fundamentalism is hard to overcome even in the face of logic, common sense, rationality, reason, and practicality. For the ideological fundamentalists it is all about faith. The free market is their altar, Regan is their messiah, and fox news are the disciples spreading the truth. How do you argue with someone who won't budge because they have faith in a myth?
Please tell me how it reduces the deficit? Is it because the government will begin collecting taxes without having to pay out benefits for 3 years? Yeah, that could do it. But how else did you think obama would pay for his stimulus's? He NEEDS health care to pass in order to keep spending the way he is. When the benefit costs come in 3 years, those will be shuffled into new taxes, yet to be seen. Its all a shell game.
BTW…under this plan, MY choice to have major medical coverage, instead of regular coverage, will be taken from me. My premiums will go up.
To say that the government does ANYTHING that saves money is a complete farce. Show me one example where government saves anyone any money? Oh, and please dont confuse saving money with "making something cheaper for one person by requiring more taxes from another to pay for it."
Go.
It's controversial because it was proposed by a Democrat. Geez, Jeff, haven't you been listening?
Well that and it is going to exchange the insurance executives' various golden rice bowls into regular, normal ones without the influx of massive profits for saying "no." 250 Million dollar paychecks are going to be a little harder to come by in the insurance businesses.
"Will reduce the deficit" (because the tax increase in the bill is larger than the actual expenditure). It isn't like taxes will decrease through organic savings from the system. Our net effect is that we will spend more on healthcare as a % of GDP than we do today.
It is like a kid saying "daddy, you give me a $20 weekly allowance but I keep spending $25. I propose you give me a $35 allowance, and I'll only spend $30 of it. That way, no deficit."
Great. You reduced the deficit. But it doesn't mean your saving a penny. Now don't get me wrong…. I respect the fact that this is deficit neutral, or at least project to be. I do. I really do. But the left is confusing the public (just as the right has been guilty of) by letting the "deficit reduction" message be interpreted as a cost-saving message. Couldn't be further from the truth.
To be clear, my issue isn't that revenues cover expenditures. That part is good.
My issue is that several "skim the headlines" people I've spoken to think that the analysis shows this bill will save us all money. it won't. It will simply cover the increased cost through increased taxes. The government breaks even. Society doesn't.
Laughable….you raise taxes for 10 years but only spend money for 7 years and claim deficit reduction. Same scam Bush did with prescription drug benefit.
Thank goodness we have some decent Democrats in DC who will kill the public option.
"decent democrats" like Lieberman who campaigned on promising universal coverage? If by "decent" you mean "lying fuckwits" you finally got something right.
Society as a whole does, millionaires (arguably) don't, though CBO estimates show that they actually will.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-repo...
CBO: Senate bill would increase individual insurance premiums
Jeff, I know you want to pass a radical left wing agenda, but citing left wing hacks who are blatantly wrong and passing it off as fact is dishonest.
How?
Show me that thishealth reform saves America money. That is different than being deficit neutral.
This isn't about logic but reason vs. fear created by those with a financial interest in the status quo.
CBO said it would reduce some and increase others. Way to pick and choose your truth Sean2. And MIT profs are hacks?
No. CBO Said all premiums go up. Then, it added that through subsidies, those well below the poverty line, and a small percentage of people already with health insurance would see a net decrease. In aggregate, the net is a premium increase, and the majority of Americans would see their premiums increase.
I don't actually believe you guys believe this. You had me going for a while but I call bs. I know you're only doing it to help, i.e. to get greater access to health care but you shouldn't have to lie about the numbers to make the case for it. But if you want to continue with the charade, please provide an example of another entitlement program that has been able to:
1. Reduce the deficit
2. Drastically expand availability
3. Does not compete with private resources
and
4. Drives other costs down.
You know what else would decrease the deficit? Increasing taxes by $5,500 per family today. Doesn't mean I've created some brilliant program. Just means I've passed a major tax increase.
Same with health reform. The only reason the long term, assumption-laden, CBO estimates show a deficit reduction in 10 years is because of the new revenue sources. It has nothing to do with saving any money on our healthcare system.
Oh, and decreasing insurance costs for 80% of Americans while cranking up taxes for 20% to cover it doesn't make it any different — your still not saving a penny in the system.
Health reform is controversial because some question if this is the federal government's job.