I hate to ask but why does the healthcare bill cost nearly 900b?

[Shagbark Hickory]

The total cost of both the Afganistan war and the War for Oil in Iraq currently total about $934b.
For BOTH wars. Since they started.

I don't quite understand how this bill is going to cost as much as those wars. It's not like we're having to buy bombs and bullets and no-bid private contractors and pay hundreds of thousands of people to be there.
The watered down public option isn't supposed to cover that many people and even then it's supposed to be self-sustaining through charging premiums. How many people will be employed at the Public Option's office? It's not like they're going to need people working in the denials department.

So clearly I am confuzled. I've been listening to these right wing turd gobblers all day on cspan and they aren't beginning to make any sense to me either but 900B is a lot. I can see it if this was about FREE healthcare to all but this bill is about FREE healthcare to NO ONE.

Did anyone who read the bill shed some light on where this money is going?
Is it going to the private insurance companies and the drug companies?

[Political Heretic]

1. It's a good question that I can't answer.

[FLDCVADem]

2. The public option can't be self-sustaining

because part of the premiums will come in the form of government subsidies. Subsidies for private insurance through the exchanges will also cost big $$, so there's where the cost is.

[Cleita]

10. Well I agree with you on the subsidies for the private insurance companies

through the exchanges because the private insurers will siphon off their profits. It has already proved to be costly in the states who have tried it. Why we are implementing a failed model is beyond me, but until we get law makers who are not subsidized and bribed by industry, that's what we are stuck with. It will break the USA I'm afraid with the cost when it wasn't necessary to do this.

[Richardo]

3. That's only $300 *per year* for each US resident over 10 years.

Assuming 300,000,000 US residents. Spending Bills are costed over 10-year timeframes.

sounds like a bargain to me.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Because 1.5 trillion was judged too much to grab in one go?

They'll fix it later.

[rollingrock]

5. Government subsidies

many of those who don't qualify for the so-called public option will have part of their mandatory private health insurance premiums paid for by the government.

[treestar]

6. One bomb can kill lots of people

With health care, each person could need procedures or drugs.

So it has to be good for the economy, too, since it will stimulate work for medical people and those who work in providing the supplies.

The expenditure leads to a healthier work force and healthier people (also some of the treatment will prevent the same people needing more expensive procedures later). Rather than just a bunch of dead people and their survivors who hate us.

[dotymed]

7. Yes, this bill is a wealth care bill

for private insurers,big pharma and medical device
manufacturers. Most Democrats (I am a Democrat) will not say
this because they want "anything" to pass, in hopes
that it will be improved on. IF the congress would have
allowed discussion of HR676, medicare for all, and allowed the
CBO to present the costs of this plan, they would have been
amazed (not really, they already know) that it would actually
save us money, insure everyone and put for profit health care
out of business. That is why they "took it off the
table." The insurance companies give them millions a year
for re-election. The only way we can get real reform is by
forcing publicly financed elections on a very corrupt system.
I would, just as soon have the public financed elections
debate (hopefully everyone can agree to that) first and then
the "health care" debate. I hate to think of anyone
else dying from lack of health care, but I realize that our
own Senators will not let a PO pass... Our country has to
change from Fascism before it can reform anything. JMO

[Cleita]

8. That's because they didn't boot the insurance and PhRMA industries out

when they came around with their hands out. Yes, it is going to the insurance and drug companies because they are running the show.

[Kansas Wyatt]

12. Well, it's because it is 'Uniquely American' for....

The Government to design Giveaways to Corporate America at the People's expense.

[jpak]

9. That's over 10 years

and there is no free lunch

[stray cat]

11. Taxpayers have to cover the roughly 7-8000 per person for health insurance

of any who make less than about 30,000 per person. Health care costs money and many can not afford anywhere near to what their health care costs.

[greennina]

13. Because doctors and nurses demand a lot of money.

If the bill included reasonable pay limits, the cost could be reduced so far it might even save money.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Because we have a for profit system of insurance, hospitals, and drugs that add...

to the cost.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/testimony/20090610MarciaAngellTestimony.pdf


Written Statement of Marcia Angell, M. D.
Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Former Editor-in-Chief, New England Journal of Medicine

"The American health system is uniquely expensive and inflationary. Last
year we spent about $2.5 trillion on health care, or some $8,000 per person,
and costs keep growing much faster than the background inflation rate.
What about comparably wealthy countries? If we look at the 30 members of
the OECD, we find a startling disparity. In the most recent year for which
figures are available, we spent two and a half times as much per person on
health care as the median for the OECD countries. The other countries
clustered fairly close together, while we stood clearly apart, and that gap is
growing. Clearly, our health system is unsustainable...

Our health care system, then, is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate and
inequitable. How can we account for the paradox of spending more and
getting less? The only plausible explanation is that there’s something about
the system itself – about the way we finance and deliver health care – that’s
enormously wasteful.

The underlying problem, I believe, is that we, alone among OECD countries,
rely on a market-based system for health care. In fact, it’s not a system at
all, but a hodge-podge of different commercial arrangements that exist more
or less independently from one another. The other countries all have
national health systems. Some are single-payer arrangements, which means
that all health care funds, whatever their source, are funneled through a
single public agency, which then coordinates the distribution of resources.
Some have multiple payers, but the system is tightly regulated so that
everyone is covered, and prices and benefits are uniform.

Most of our other problems stem from that decision to treat health care like a
market commodity instead of a social service. Thus, we distribute it not
according to medical need, but according to the ability to pay. But there’s a
great mismatch between medical need and the ability to pay. In fact, those
with the greatest need are precisely those least able to pay. So while markets
are good for many things, they’re not a good way to distribute health care.
People who are well insured may get an MRI they don’t need (and overuse
of tests is a major contributor to cost inflation), while people without
insurance may not get an MRI they do need.

Furthermore, successful markets expand; they don’t contract. Businesses
aim to increase revenues and maximize profits. Hospitals in the U. S., for
example, often advertise their services. Like all businesses, they want more,
not fewer customers. So each element in the health market is working to
grow, even while the country as a whole presumably wants the system to
contract...."

[Kitsune]

15. Because the Health Insurance Mafia saw the scam that the financial industry pulled off

And they said "hey, we want some unearned handouts for wrecking OUR part of the American economy, too!"

And congress happily complied.

[Laelth]

17. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[leftstreet]

20. +2

They're getting a bailout BEFORE the bubble!

[slipslidingaway]

16. ....nt

[rgbecker]

18. It should be pointed out, the 900 bln is paid for and will probably not effect you.

If you are making less than $200,000 per year you will not see any of your taxes going toward this health care reform, but rather, yours will continue to go towards bombing and killing people.

These plans are going after the rich. In one of the plans, there is a call for a slight increase in the medicare tax deduction from your paycheck. There is planned cuts in total medicare benefits which will probably result from the better care people will receive before they make it to age 65 when medicare cuts in.

Other costs, besides subsidies for lower income people's insurance, include a larger pool of medicaid recipients, as mentioned above.

The cbo that looks into the cost of these plans say that the tax increase on the rich will actually more than pay the costs and after some years help to reduce the deficit.

[Shagbark Hickory]

19. That's too bad. I'd rather my tax go towards healthcare than wars. n/t