CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit

[TomCADem]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first ten years.

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the original $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.

CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option -- one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/20/health.care.cbo/

[LiberalFighter]

1. I was wondering when they would calculate the financial benefits.

They need to calculate the benefits to companies that currently provide insurance to their employees.

[valerief]

27. Financial benefits--in the billions. Political benefits--priceless. nt

[mvd]

2. Big K&R

But Repukes suddenly will ignore being "fiscally responsible."

[tomm2thumbs]

3. Imagine that!??

Robust = genuine savings
Pelosi = healthcare white knight?

Let's see what happens...

[dhpgetsit]

18. Corporate welfare is actually more expensive than

Medicare Part E!

[FarLeftFist]

4. Now was that so hard. Really, this took 9 months to accomplish.

They should have just listened to Obama from the start.

[Ms. Toad]

40. Unfortunately, Obama chose not to provide specific guidance

until recently. His original calls for reform were aspirational, not directional.

Anyone listening to Obama before his recent, more specific, guidelines could still have had designed a bill within a very broad from completely unacceptable to what is currently proposed, or even to significantly better than the current proposals.

[DonCoquixote]

5. Of course

Single payer would save even MORE money, but I will gladly take the Public Option, if for no other reason than once people get a taste of decent government service (the good stuff) , they will want to expand this option (aka let's break out the BETTER stuff.)

Of course, watch both the far right and the far left scatter, since neither really want Obama to succeed.

[Myrina]

25. I am 'far left' ...

... I - and many, many others - DO want Prez O to succeed, but have been less than impressed with his consistent capitulation to the middle-right and corporate interests over the actual needs of we the people.

[kenfrequed]

44. Feh

This feels like standard blue dog/corporate democrat bile.

I think universal single payer should have been on the table from the start. To progressives a strong, robust, and reasonable public option WAS the compromise. A lesson here is NEVER compromise before you get to the table.

[NewJeffCT]

6. Now, how will the RWers spin this?

I've already contacted Sen. Lieberman's office a few times and asked him to stick to his 2006 position in support of a public option. However, it seems he has flip-flopped and points to the cost of a public option??? Maybe this will change his mind?

[orbitalman]

11. Yes, You Know They Will Try to Spin This...

you just KNOW they will TRY to spin it!!!!!!

[TheEuclideanOne]

22. Let me guess..... the liberal CBO?

Just a guess

[City Lights]

7. Fantastic news!

I pity the fools who refuse to get on board.

[No Elephants]

8. One can only imagine what single payer would do.

One can only imagine because, although HR 676 was first introduced in 2003 and has about 100 co-sponsors, no one has found time yet to request CBO review.

So, I imagine that single payer would eliminate the deficit, wipe out all deadly diseases, bring world peace and turn Republicazns into lovely folk, all within my lifetime.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Review was requested and promised several weeks ago.

Still waiting, though.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Lookie here - the robust public option version is more deficit friendly than the blue dogs version.

Moderate, "blue dog" Democrats in the House largely oppose the robust public option and instead argue for a government run insurance option that could negotiate reimbursement rates directly with doctors and hospitals. CBO's analysis of that approach was not available according to Democratic sources, but aides say the preliminary analysis shows it does not save as much as the approach pushed by Pelosi.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/20/health.care.cbo/

[Barack_America]

10. It's interesting that reimbursement rates make such a difference.

IMO, however, if we're going to ask doctors to be reimbursed at these rates, we really need to do something about the education debt young doctors are facing.

I've found this makes a huge difference towards young doctor's support of the PO or single payer. My friends that entered the field expecting to make a certain income and are swimming in education debt are much less inclined to support health care reform than myself (my medical school is paid by a government program). If I were $500,000 in debt, as I would be without this program, would I support drastic health care reform? I honestly don't know.

[kenfrequed]

21. The system of student loans is a problem

And it is a problem all its own. I believe the system of loans should be eliminated and replaced with a system of garaunteed grants or, better yet, free education.

Right now the loan system seems to exist just to provide banks with garaunteed federal monies for no good reason. Education has gotten more and more expensive and many young people and young families are finding themselves bound down to debt that controls their lives. If you want a consumer-capitalist economy to work than you should free up the incomes of people that will be buying their first homes, their first new cars, and all the purchases that a starting family or newly employed independent single person should need.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. Then why the hell isn't a public option guaranteed?

Between this, and the poll numbers that show an OVERWHELMING majority of people want a public option, WHY IS THIS EVEN UP FOR DEBATE?

Why do I feel like there is a good chance that a public option will not be included?

Our politicians are bastards. They care more about their lobbyist money than they do anything else.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. WELL EXACTLY!!!!

[TheEuclideanOne]

20. I think that you asked a good question and answered it all in one post

Yes, the reality is that you hit the nail on the head at te very end. If I can add one more reason, it really has nothing to do with the merits of any plan, it is all about making Obama fail at all costs.

[valerief]

28. Same reason why single payer is a turd in the toilet. They don't care what we want. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. Shocking, I know.

:shrug:

[goclark]

14. Let's get this K'd and R

Oh happy day if this gets passed!

I read someplace on the thread that there should be something in the bill for reducing the debt of Medical Students.

I totally agree.

EX: My young dentist is wonderful. She has $150,000 in debts from Dental School.

My cousin that works for AT&T graduated from college and is paying back $60,000 in student loans.HE makes more than SHE does.

My father graduated from Medical School in 1948 and he did not have ANY money to pay back.

I never heard him ever complain about anything, he served his patients with honor and pride. He loved practicing and made more than enough money.

I feel sorry for this generation of young, bright Med Students, with the cost of Mal Practice Insurance and Loans, why not work for AT& T?

They will need more physicians with the Health Plan because finally, more people will be going to the see the doctor and get WELL ~ what a joyous day that will be!

Let's Roll!

[no limit]

15. And Im willing to bet we still won't get it.

Eventhough its no more expensive than what the finance comittee put out.

[Kingofalldems]

16. So- called blue dogs have no excuse now

We're waiting.

[BlueDemKev]

19. *GASP!*

Wow, this news is a bombshell!! If the CBO analysis is accurate, then this is the health care bill which we should go with. Unfortunately, according to the article, Pelosi has said she is still well short of 218 votes (doesn't even have 200). We'll have to wait and see if enough Blue Dog Democrats would be willing to support this bill now that they know it would help reduce the deficit even more than the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

Also, there's still the Senate. We are still way short of the 60 votes needed to pass a public option there (plus, we'd lose Snowe's vote, and with it probably several other votes would go with it). Of course, if there are 51 votes, we could do pass the public option there. Ultimately, even if we are unable to convince enough folks in Congress to support the public option, we still need to pass something, even if it's only the Senate Finance's bill with a triggered public option.

I would suggest we get on the Blue Dogs' tails (pun intended) right now. Start making phone calls to their offices!

[FourScore]

23. good news! n/t

[fascisthunter]

24. and yet, these so-called "conservatives" will be against it

[thereismore]

26. What say you Landrieu, Nelson, Baucus, and the rest of you "concerned" about cost? nt

[fascisthunter]

34. they will have to lie in order to defend their position

making all more evident who they really work for, that is if they lie. They have been all put in a tough spot...

[BlueDemKev]

37. Yep

Yes, they have. I'd hate to be in their shoes right now.

[joeybee12]

29. Move along, nothing to see here...

...common sense and facts have nothing to do with what we should and will get.

[MelissaB]

30. A big K&R.

[Lugnut]

31. K&R n/t

[earcandle]

32. HR676 or a public option will help us get real care, not fear ridden care.

[BREMPRO]

33. like to see the so called "fiscal conservatives" try to argue away the value of a robust PO now

i'm talked to you blue dogs and my senators from Maine.

it saves the government (us) money.

its simple: a no brainer. vote for it.

[BlueDemKev]

36. I have to admit....

...you may have won me over on the public option. Only trouble is the Blue Dogs mostly come from rural areas where their constituents passionately distrust the government (all the while they're raking in public benefits, of course).

Anyway, I am very excited about this news and I hope and pray that enough Blue Dogs in Congress will be persuaded as I have.

[BREMPRO]

41. great! I'm glad to hear that :)

I do believe a public option is a constructive and significant step forward and now that the non-partisan CBO has scored it as a money saver, there is going to be a good chance (and strong industry push back) to get it in the final bill. I know there is a deep distrust of Federal govt. in certain areas of the country- fueled in part by RW noise machine and past experiences. And you are right about the hypocrisy- but i think that is just in part being misinformed. These are hard entrenched view to overcome. I usally say to people when they say the government can't run things well that look at the military- best in the world, right?. When they tried to outsource functions of the military to private companies we got the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater, that were not only much more expensive, but corrupt and unaccountable. The government run VA hospitals are a model of efficiency and good care with low overhead. There are certain things government does well and more efficiently.

We are "under new management" a team that actually seem to know what they are doing,have the facts on their side, are experts in their field, and political realists. They are not the usual corporate shills of the Bush era, and i believe they have the public interest at heart. Compare the health reform bills to the medicare part D . I believe that is projected to cost us 700 billion over the next decade. There was little cry of foul under Bush that the bill wasn't paid for. The 2009 health reform bill with a public option is now not only scored budget neutral, but budget saving! that includes the addition of 30 million Americans getting health insurance, no denials for pre-existing conditions, or cancelling of policies if you get sick. There is also broad authority within the bill for the HHS agency to moniter and evalutate delivery and make recommendations to save money. That quite an achievement and a demonstration of responsible governing and fiscal responsibility that didn't exist in the Bush era.

I would urge you to contact your Rep.s and Senators if you haven't already to tell them about your support for a robust public option and why you support it- That would be a great help!!

[SandWalker1984]

38. Think how much we'd save if EVERYONE had access to a public option,

Think how much we'd save if EVERYONE had access to a public option, not just 5% of the population.

Yes, 5%. The way I'm reading it, and I heard Senator Bernie Sanders state this on a radio show, the public option we are fighting like hell to get included in the bills WOULD ONLY BE OFFERED TO PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE, about 5% of the population.
If you have bad insurance coverage, sorry, you can't switch to the public option.

I know, I know, some will say you have to start someplace and add from there. But, considering the hostile environment being created against health care reform by Republicans and health "care" corporations, when do you think we will get a 2nd chance to improve on any legislation passed?

How long before the big insurance corporations find a way to crush the tiny, underfunded public option?

If you believe that a public option for ALL must be included in any health care reform bill, then keep fighting for it. The battle is far from over and we have a lot to lose if we fail.

[BREMPRO]

43. but if it works, which i expect it will

there will be an argument to increase it's availability from 5%, to say 15% or more. With the power of the stakeholders here, one would be wise to at least get the PO structure in place first, demonstrated that it saves money and works over time, and then lobby for an increase in availability down the road. Also don't forget that a third of our health care costs are related to perverse incentives for doctors in "fee for service" delivery. More health care is not better health care. This has very little to do with insurance.

[Overseas]

39. Of course it does. Open Up Medicare to all who want it !

50+ in 2010.

Medicare overhead 3-5%, private insurance 15-25% or so.

That's why private insurers are funding the cruel amoral right wing PR groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity to stir up fear and hatred in our desperate fellow citizens and redirect their anger from the private insurers robbing them blind to the nebulous "big government" that can be used again when they want to scare people against curbing US carbon emissions.

[sakabatou]

42. Huzzuh!

Now, when will Congress pass it?

[damntexdem]

45. Well, duh!

Good if it hits the media, though.

[bvar22]

46. Somebody help me with the math:

According to the CBO,

*The Public Option will only cost $871 Billion for 10 years.

*The Public Option will cover 10 million Americans after 10 years.

I'm not too good at math.
Are we getting a deal?

[Piewhacket]

47. Bluedogs:

I do not personally waste resources because I believe it is immoral. In a
thirsty land, it is immoral to pour water onto the sand.
I teach this principle to others, who are capable of understanding it.

I teach it to a teenager I tutor, as she returns from Africa on a field
trip of manually digging wells for water for a village. She has learned how precious
water is in a thirsty land, too precious when some still thirst, too precious to
take from those in need, too precious to pour upon the sand.

So too as she goes off to college with scholarships in abundance. But knows
she need not concern herself with whether she merits privileges not given to others,
others have decided that for her. Her responsibility is to use
the granted privileges wisely. For what she has been given she should not waste.

So it should be obvious I am a fiscal conservative. Just not a greedy one.
Greed is morally wrong. So every major religion explains. And history has now shown
(what we already knew) that "free markets" are not efficient markets, they are
merely lawless markets.

(We must build monuments to Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, large statues so
pigeons may forever shit on their likenesses, reminding us of their flawed religion,
flawed mathematics, and arrogant failures.)

So now we come to fundamentals of life. Education of the young in an advanced society,
health care in a civilized and humane society. These are fundamentals. These ARE
necessities of life in an advanced society . These are like salt in a hot land, like
water in a dry land. Without them, an advanced society collapses.

It is therefore immoral, in a thirsty land, to spend precious water to wage unnecessary war.
It is immoral, in a thirsty land, to take from those in need to finance a massive
gambling binge for the wealthy. It is immoral, in a land with pockets of poverty,
poor education, and where health care is only for a privileged few, to fund
unnecessary war and gambling for the few.

Yet what is apparent is we DO have the resources to publicly fund universal education and
health care. These is not the slightest doubt of it. WHAT IS TRUE is we cannot afford NOT to
have universal education and health care. Cost must be managed but cost is insignificant
to benefit, for these are the necessities of advanced societies. The alternative view is not
merely wrong but morally bankrupt, for it isn't really about COST... its about monopoly and PROFITS.

We basically MUST fund education and health care, and there is no real difficulty doing so. What
we cannot afford is to continue pouring precious water into the sands of PROFIT for the few,
while people thirst.

So says this fiscal conservative to his bluedog colleagues.

[bvar22]

49. Well done.

Deserves it's own thread.

Please post this as an OP .
:patriot:

[Piewhacket]

50. Thank you.

It was off the top and needs polish.
I'll save it and consider your request.
Lets see if anyone else notices it.

[dpbrown]

48. May this go viral and spread like the wind!!!

Tell everyone!

[Vidar]

51. K&R

[LaPera]

52. No excuses now for the republicans who call themselves DEM'S-Public Option NOW!

[johnaries]

53. Spread the news! It's up to US! Don't wait on the M$M or the WH

after all, no one hears what the WH or Obama says unless it's reported in the M$M. It's up to US.

Remember, we are the ones we have been waiting for. Obama never said "yes, I can": he said "yes WE can!"

[ChoppinBroccoli]

54. No Balls, Two Strikes To The Teabaggers..........

..........and the 0-2 pitch is on the way..........

"We the People don't want the public option." 57% of Americans want a public option, and when they have the public option explained to them, that number rises to over 80%. Strike One.

"It will be too expensive and cause astronomical deficits." The public option actually SAVES money. Strike Two.

The pitcher winds, and here it comes............

[harry_pothead]

55. RAM THIS TALKING POINT HOME

[ChoppinBroccoli]

56. I Posted This Article On My Facebook Page And Got This Response

"interesting that the CBO finds such positive figures...considering this is their plan. Perhaps they're biased?? in all fairness, I don't knock the plan entirely but any plan that includes fines for not buying isn't in my playbook."

Wow. There's a LOT of disinformation and/or ignorance out there. I can't believe I had to actually inform somebody that the Congressional Budget Office is NOT a partisan organization, nor do they write legislation. These teabaggers are clinging to any straw they can find.

And does anyone know about the whole "fines for not having insurance" thing? Is that likely to be in the final bill? Do the amendments being considered now even include that? Because I thought that idea had been scrapped.