Submit News News

Conservatives Celebrate Embarrassing CBO Analysis Of GOP Health Care Bill

- In its own quiet way, the Congressional Budget Office gave the Republicans' health care bill a failing grade: A package seemingly meant to address the problem of the uninsured that does almost nothing to expand insurance or lower premiums.

But somehow, someway, conservatives don't seem to have noticed. In fact, they're celebrating!... Read full article »
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Related Discussions
Top Comment
  • +8 / -1 raves turkey pepperoni November 06, 2009 21:09:35 (edited)
    turkey pepperoni
    ha!

    "By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured."

    lawlz! how to do you feel about that boomers?

    garsh, covering 3 million people over the course of 10 years...thanks for the herculean efforts, GOP...
    View thread
Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Comments
  • moomoof "Jin Kazama!" November 07, 2009 14:02:23
    moomoof
    Ofcourse not they just wanted now say they have a bill but their is crap
  • +1 raves
    carlene November 07, 2009 11:45:29
    carlene
    I like the Republican bill better. I can read it. It doesnt require a tax on everyone and everything. It actually reduces premium cost instead of doubling it like the Pelosi bill. It keeps goverment out of my healthcare. It retains my fathers medicare benefits prolonging his life for me. It provides for tort reform and a stop to those out of control jury awards that push up the cost of healthcare. It creates competition in the insurance market. It allows pooling of insured. And it gives the nonelderly uninsured the option of not buying insurance if they dont want it. Medicare and Medicaid will continue to provide for the elderly and poor as designed. And its not 10 years of taxes for 4.5 years of insurance like the Pelosi bill. Whats not to like in this Republican bill.
  • +3 raves
    krister bülü *In Doctor Don... November 07, 2009 08:40:44
    krister bülü *In Doctor Donna I Trust* R.I.P.
    Why would they write a bill that benefits the average taxpayer? If they do that it is called "socialism" AND THAT'S BAD.
  • +2 raves
    RenegadeSE November 07, 2009 07:53:03
    RenegadeSE
    The republicans eventually provide an alternative "health Care Plan" merely on account of their main theme so far is to stir up extremists into a frenzy, and it turns out that their recommendation stinks like the rhetoric they expound.
  • Paul Revere November 07, 2009 04:54:43
  • Marty9957 November 07, 2009 02:02:19
    Marty9957
    Who's to say that the person carrying that sign poster wasn't a plant from the left. They're in trouble and they know it. Maybe it was done to discredit the group.
  • +3 raves
    motowndem November 07, 2009 01:35:35 (edited)
    motowndem
    At least the Repugnants produced something in writing. I guess they thought that doing so would remove the label "Party of NO".

    Instead, their offering signs, seals, and delivers--to the rapacious health care syndicate. Patients be damned.
  • +2 raves
    Charge November 07, 2009 01:26:54 (edited)
    Charge
    OK, now we have two bills, one from the Progressive/Liberals and one from the Republicans that FAIL. But it is interesting that with the Republican bill current costs by 2016 would go (your example) from $12,000 today to $11,400. While with the Progressive/Liberal bill costs will continue to increase where $500Billion will be cut from Medicare... and we will not be fined by the republican Bill where the Progressive/Liberal bill will fine us and tax us for not having dictated coverage... I don't know we need to read the bills.... When are the Progressive/Liberals going to post the final bill on the internet?
    Sorry, edit for SP.
  • +2 raves
    airraid81 November 06, 2009 22:22:40
    airraid81
    This "embarrasing" analysis, as TPM would say, said that the bill only costs $61 billion and cuts the deficit by $68 billion. What is the Democrats' bill up to? $1.8 trillion?
  • +4 raves
    Legion™ airraid81 November 06, 2009 22:26:21
    Legion™
    But what's the point of spending $61 billion and getting no worthwhile results?

    That's waste.
  • +1 raves
    Marty9957 Legion™ November 07, 2009 02:07:50
    Marty9957
    The final version of the Democrats bill according to CBO will still leave 29 million uninsured and cost over a trillion bucks that we don't have. What part of that do the liberals not get.
  • +1 raves
    sue Legion™ November 07, 2009 10:12:02
    sue
    According to the last CBO estimate I heard, the democratic bill would be at least budget neutral.
  • +6 raves
    Unnamed November 06, 2009 22:10:33
    Unnamed
    Since the GOP's mission seems to be "spend less money" rather than "fix health care", a cheap-and-impotent bill is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for them
  • +1 / -1 raves
    BOHANEY Unnamed November 07, 2009 02:40:14
    BOHANEY
    I would really like some liberal nutjob to stop spewing long enough to step up to the plate and EXPLAIN IN CONCISE DETAILS how it is that the American Health Care System is broken and in need of fixing. Do it, damnit! Can't? Won't? Typical of ignorant dimlibbers (dim-witted liberal dems, progressives and so-called mods). Let's get a well reasoned, articulate take from you moonbats instead of spewing bumper sticker tripe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • +1 raves
    Unnamed BOHANEY November 07, 2009 03:00:27
    Unnamed
    The the CBO is saying that the Republican plan will cover 8 million additional people at a per capita cost of $2,700 each, compared to the Democrat plan which covers 36 million additional people at a per capita cost of $25,000 each?

    Does one proposed plan really have a per capita cost ten times that of the other?"

    Answer: It is actually only 3 million additional and not 8. This would then increase the cost per unit to $20,000. It is true the dems would be $27,000 per unit but the dem plan would save more in the long term as the more people covered the less we need to pay for uninsured emergency room treatment.Good enough
  • +1 raves
    BOHANEY Unnamed November 07, 2009 03:12:36
    BOHANEY
    Typical. Completely avoided my challenge to you. Simply spewed unproven gibberish spoon fed to you by the statists. NOW, answer my damned question or cease to post to me. I'm not interested in liberal bullshit. I want facts, not speculative crap. Take the challenge or not but after failing to do so then simply STFU, please!
  • +1 raves
    Unnamed BOHANEY November 07, 2009 03:16:44
    Unnamed
    Nothing is never enough good for you guys. So hard to satisfied
  • +1 raves
    BOHANEY Unnamed November 07, 2009 03:20:27
    BOHANEY
    I'm easily satisfied. Show your prowess and meet the challenge, damnit. Or realize you are making my point and a complete fool of yourself in front of the SodaHead world. GO!
  • +1 / -1 raves
    Unnamed BOHANEY November 07, 2009 03:33:28
    Unnamed
    Just another asshole!
  • +1 raves
    sue BOHANEY November 07, 2009 10:32:46
    sue
    The American Health Care system works well for people on Medicare (the highest number of satisfied people) and people in large group plans (white and blue collar workers in large industrial, financial, and consumer product companies). For people who work in small businesses and the services industry, our two fastest growing industries, the system does not work so well. Many (I beleive most, but have no reference, so I'll say many), service industry companies do not provide health insurance to employees. Small businesses try to provide insurance to attract the best employees, but they often cannot afford to, or they can't afford comprehensive policies. This means more and more people have to buy individual policies, or are part of small groups. These groups are vulnerable the way current health insurance works. It also means there are more people that cannot afford insurance, because individual plans are more costly to the insured than group plans. This is a problem because the number of uninsured and underinsured will keep growing with the continued shift in industries. More and more people will contribute to rising costs and fewer people will have adequate insurance to cover costs. Already, one of the biggest reasons for foreclosure in the recent housing crisis was the burden...





    The American Health Care system works well for people on Medicare (the highest number of satisfied people) and people in large group plans (white and blue collar workers in large industrial, financial, and consumer product companies). For people who work in small businesses and the services industry, our two fastest growing industries, the system does not work so well. Many (I beleive most, but have no reference, so I'll say many), service industry companies do not provide health insurance to employees. Small businesses try to provide insurance to attract the best employees, but they often cannot afford to, or they can't afford comprehensive policies. This means more and more people have to buy individual policies, or are part of small groups. These groups are vulnerable the way current health insurance works. It also means there are more people that cannot afford insurance, because individual plans are more costly to the insured than group plans. This is a problem because the number of uninsured and underinsured will keep growing with the continued shift in industries. More and more people will contribute to rising costs and fewer people will have adequate insurance to cover costs. Already, one of the biggest reasons for foreclosure in the recent housing crisis was the burden of health care costs which made it difficult to make house payments. This issue affects not only health care, but the whole economy. Also, our health indicators are dropping, even though we are paying more. We now have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba -- a developing economy with socialized medicine.

    If you have a pre-existing condition, you may be refused coverage. That may seem to make sense, but what happens in reality, is that when you become ill (we aren't talking one time things like appendicitis or a broken bone, but a longer term illness), the insurance companies raise rates, and raise rates and lower your cap, etc. You can't change insurance companies, because they won't accept you with preexisting conditions, even at higher rates. This puts you in a position where you cannot afford not to pay whatever rates, fees, and endure whatever caps your insurance company puts on you, because you can't switch, and as an individual, you have no power to stop them. The same kind of thing works for small group plans. In some ways, the companies are justified because with these groups, the risk is not spread over as healthy a group. (SInce individual plans are more expensive, some people who think they are healthy take the risk of having no insurance, so the overall pool is less healthy than in a large group plan where the cost is low enough that even healthy people buy in.) But, in many cases, the companies look for reasons to drop costly customers, and that leaves many sick people uninsured just when they need coverage most. In the meantime, the people who don't have insurance end up having problems too. They are likely to wait until their problems are acute, since they cannot afford to pay for tests and specialists early on. Or, they show up with catastrophic injuries. These people show up in the emergency room and can't pay. That raises the costs for the rest of us.

    The way the proposed bill deals with all this is to let people who are happy where they are stay there. It creates an "exchange" that will allow small businesses to be part of large group plans, so that they can offere lower premiums to their employees and are part of a larger risk pool. This gives them more leverage over the insurer and the insurer a better profit on the group than it would have on many small groups. People would also be required to have insurance, which would make for a better risk pool for insurers so that they can keep premiums within reach. This would also stop them from landing in the emergency room and raising costs for everybody. Companies will no longer be allowed to refuse a person based on preexisting conditions, so they will still need to be competitive with their rates, even after people get sick.

    That is the best I can figure out how to explain it. I hope it "meets the challenge."
    (more)
or
Cancel