CBO: ObamaCare will cost $1T, still leaves 30 million uninsured

posted at 8:47 am on June 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Congressional Budget Office has tried crunching the numbers on Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care, which Obama says will save money and protect the uninsured.  The CBO director on his official blog says, “Wrong!” — on both counts.  The reform plan will cost more than a trillion dollars over the next decade, and while it will put 39 million people on insurance plans, it will drive off more than 23 million more from their existing plans.  The cost doesn’t include Obama’s public plan option, either:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

A net decrease of 16-17 million would still leave about 30 million uninsured, according to the figures thrown around by ObamaCare advocates.  It would simply exchange individuals in the uninsured category, and those most likely to lose their coverage would be those in lower-income jobs, as well as people working in small businesses and startups.

We would spend a trillion dollars to achieve a net result of solving a third of the uninsured problem.  We could have exceeded that by simply paying for private insurance.  Assuming an annual cost of $5,000 for basic catastrophic and wellness coverage, we could purchase 20 million plans for the ten years, without overhauling the rest of the American health-care system.

But that would be akin to the “public plan,” which the trillion-dollar CBO cost estimate doesn’t cover.   The inclusion of such a plan would remove the incentive for employers to offer insurance at all, which would create many millions more uninsured.  At the same time, the public plan would undercut private insurers in the individual markets, pushing people who got kicked out of an employer group plan towards the Medicare-like coverage — and accomplishing single payer by default.

What would be the real cost of ObamaCare?  Well north of a trillion dollars. We’ll see if the CBO updates the figures with the analysis of the dynamic impact of the public plan in the coming days, or whether the CBO gets suddenly quiet about it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Thanks for nada. :)

JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

How can BO tell us to cut down on healthcare, when his

administration is providings lots of free abortions to the world?

bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM
That’s easy. Abortions cost less than carrying a pregnancy to term.

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Well here’s another logical no brainer that looks like it may come to pass (no pun intenended). Old age costs a lot, too. So why extend the lives of the ederly with medical care, when we just save a whole lot of money by not treating them with the latest technology? Why doesn’t BO really let folks know what this means to the old folks?

bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Hey, we’ll be able to get the full story from ABC OBC

Caper29 on June 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM

I’m no economist, but couldn’t the government just give the uninsured a tax credit of each year to buy health insurance in the private sector for SIGNIFICANTLY less than what this Obamascam proposal will cost? Am I missing something?

uncalheels on June 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM

That won’t reduce the costs of healthcare.

It could be done to give people access to insurance, but there would need to be other measures (tort reform, cross state insurance buying, etc) to bring down costs.

Also, if the government is pumping mosre customers into the system without changing other aspects, it will increase the costs, kind of like subsidized loans to colleges raising the cost of college.

myrenovations on June 16, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Will the despicable Charlie Gibson mention this on his Obamathon? Someone HAS to file a suit to get an injunction. This infomercial needs to be paid for by the Dems AND indicated as such. You know damn well that ABC will not offer competing plans.

marklmail on June 16, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Did they pull the site down? Can’t access it.

Needless to say, this CBO has certainly been a thorn in Obama’s side. How long til it’s fixed?

amkun on June 16, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Old age costs a lot, too. So why extend the lives of the ederly with medical care, when we just save a whole lot of money by not treating them with the latest technology? Why doesn’t BO really let folks know what this means to the old folks?

bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM

We have a scarce resource (sophisticated, expensive, state-of-the-art medical care) and high demand. That means it will cost a lot. An unfettered market system would allocate that resource to people who will pay for it while others get less, and some others would get none.

(In reality, everyone currently gets quite a bit–even the uninsured and illegal aliens go to emergency rooms for treatment. But Obama’s intent on killing that goose because he doens’t like the types of people who get rich off of health care.)

In any event, why shouldn’t oldies who can’t pay top dollar for the best care get less? Why shouldn’t society allocate more resources to kids than to seniors? Why should granny get her hip on the dole? My uncle, aged 87, just got open heart surgery and a new hip paid for by the taxpayer. Why? His apartment is pretty modest; why not buy him a better one as other people have better ones?

If people can’t stomach the idea of denying old people certain taxpayer funded health benefits, yet it’s bankrupting the current system and putting future generations into debt, it’s disingenuous to suggest that only gov’t run health care will lead to rationing. The only reason we don’t have rationing right now is because the printing presses are still on, but that can’t last forever regardless of what system we have.

JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM

If the government has access to everyone’s medical records through the super duper medical information plan, then we will be a step closer to an Orwellian society.

Dhuka on June 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM

If the government has access to everyone’s medical records through the super duper medical information plan, then we will be a step closer to an Orwellian society.

Dhuka on June 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM

If the government has access to everyone’s medical records through the super duper medical information plan, then we will be a step closer to an Orwellian society.

Dhuka on June 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM

And don’t forget. The Obamacare plan curiously has all information about Private Health information (which protects your info as completely confidential) missing. Which is creepy as all get out.

mjk on June 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM

How are people really insured if they are going to be denied care to keep costs down or they have to wait months for critical and lifesaving treatments? Also, how is it keeping the costs down when we will be paying more in taxes to pay for it?

Blake on June 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

And GM/NBC/MSNBC gets BILLIONS of our money for “smart medical records”, or some such bullsh*T. Obama’s giving us the finger, laughing at us in private, and sticking that bony finger directly in our eyes.

marklmail on June 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM

You think that a 20,000 dollar deductible is ’single payer’ you are misunderstanding the system.

ThackerAgency on June 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM

A $20,000 deductible, where the rest of the costs are footed by the government, is essentially a single-payer system. The consumer of the health care is only interested in keeping costs low until they reach $20,000. The government, being responsible for all the costs in excess of $20,000, is the party in charge of haggling for prices and quantities. Just because the funds are remitted from two different sources does not mean your plan does not suffer from all the flaws of a single-payer system when treatment costs exceed $20k.

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM

The biggest reason private health insurance is so expensive is that privately insured people are subsidizing the costs that the government is not paying for Medicare and Medicaid patients. The answer to this is not more government intervention, but less. The second biggest reason is unnecessary costs added to the system by lawsuits and the fear of lawsuits.

rockmom on June 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM

I, of all people, am most certainly not asking for additional government intervention. I am merely asking Conservatives to argue intelligently against government intervention–as it is, you’re making straw men of yourselves. One among many possible for-instances: the things you cite as the biggest reasons for the explosion in health care costs are not, empirically, the biggest reasons–they are propaganda talking points only.

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM

I’m no economist, but couldn’t the government just give the uninsured a tax credit of each year to buy health insurance in the private sector for SIGNIFICANTLY less than what this Obamascam proposal will cost? Am I missing something?

uncalheels on June 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I am an economist. The answer to your question is an unqualified “yes.”

The problem, though (at least the Dems see it as a problem), is that most of the uninsured would still, even with such a program, choose not to purchase insurance.

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM

So why extend the lives of the ederly with medical care, when we just save a whole lot of money by not treating them with the latest technology? Why doesn’t BO really let folks know what this means to the old folks?

bloggless on June 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM

That’s exactly my argument, and Conservatives are being disingenuous about it too. No health care paradigm can cost less than the present paradigm without certain people not getting as much expensive treatment as they are getting at present.

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I’m telling you, there are two things on our horizon (among others, of course). They are:

1. A Proceation permit (govt permission to have a child, considering parental ability to raise the child IAW govt standards)

2. Elderly Viability Hearings (Prove why the govt should continue to support you as your ability to contribute to society declines).

Both will be touted as cost control measures.

Logan’s Run without the nuclear disaster. Give me Sanctuary!

BobMbx on June 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM

This is excellent news! Now if Obama can only destroy the energy sector with Cap-n-Trade, we’ll go right down the toilet in record time! I think Rome has been holding onto that “Guiness World Record for Fastest Decline of an Empire” title for waaaay too long.

I guess I’m bumping up the move to Bhimini to early next week.

Note to self #1: Begin network infiltration of government agencies to skim off 100s of millions from TARP. They’ll never miss it.

Note to self #2: Purchase gold and diamonds with acquired funds before US currency becomes toilet paper/fire starter.

Geministorm on June 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM

We all know that no matter what “compromise” this bill reaches, it’s only the 1st step toward full nationalization. It’s the liberal MO on all issues. Incremental steps to the end goal.

Remember SCHIP? It was initially for really poor kids. Today in some states, kids whose parents make $120 a year qualify as “poor” and in need of government assistance.

That’s how government programs operate. They grow every year and cost more every year as well.

angryed on June 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM

$120K a year

angryed on June 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM

How are people really insured if they are going to be denied care to keep costs down or they have to wait months for critical and lifesaving treatments? Also, how is it keeping the costs down when we will be paying more in taxes to pay for it?

Blake on June 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Up is down. This is what is known as “dictating”. It is whatever I say it is, because “I won”.

BobMbx on June 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM

I, of all people, am most certainly not asking for additional government intervention. I am merely asking Conservatives to argue intelligently against government intervention–as it is, you’re making straw men of yourselves. One among many possible for-instances: the things you cite as the biggest reasons for the explosion in health care costs are not, empirically, the biggest reasons–they are propaganda talking points only.

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Guess what, genius? She’s right. Those are two of the biggest reasons for high costs in health insurance/care. Of course, you being an economist would know more about health care than little ol’ me who actually works in it….

mjk on June 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM

We would spend a trillion dollars to achieve a net result of solving a third of the uninsured problem. We could have exceeded that by simply paying for private insurance. Assuming an annual cost of $5,000 for basic catastrophic and wellness coverage, we could purchase 20 million plans for the ten years, without overhauling the rest of the American health-care system.

That’s effectively what this plan is doing. If you read the letter (not the blog post) it goes into more detail. The “cost” comes from two places, tax credits given to small businesses and helping cover the cost of insurance for low-income people. The average subsidy? $5k raising towards $6k over the years. There’s also a net tax increase as people move away from employer sponsored insurance (which isn’t currently taxed) and by people paying penalties for not having insurance.

Also interesting to note that a third of the remaining uninsured would be either illegal immigrants or people eligible for medicaid but not enrolled.

jonknee on June 16, 2009 at 11:23 AM

One can only hope that the dismal incompetence of BHO and his minions will result in failure to pass this monstrosity.

If he does succeed in socializing healthcare, we can place a a good deal of the blame on feckless Republicans, who have failed, year after year, to dispell the Democrat’s Big Lie that there are 47 million uninsured. Take out the 9 million illegal aliens, the young workers who opt out of their employers’ plans and the millions who lack insurance for less than 12 months and the real number is under 10 million. So we’re going to destroy the system for 290 million people in order to cover 10 million? No, we’re going to destroy it because that’s what the Statist ideologues have dreamed about since the days of the Truman administration.

guntotinglibertarian on June 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM

And, of course, there is the minor detail that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to even be in health care. Health care is a state issue.

This is so insane that I don’t even have words for it, anymore.

progressoverpeace on June 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I’m no economist, but couldn’t the government just give the uninsured a tax credit of each year to buy health insurance in the private sector for SIGNIFICANTLY less than what this Obamascam proposal will cost? Am I missing something?

uncalheels on June 16, 2009 at 10:30 A Well no because that would make sense and we can`t have that ,when spending taxpayers money . What could you be thinking? LOL

LSUMama on June 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM

At the same time, the public plan would undercut private insurers in the individual markets, pushing people who got kicked out of an employer group plan towards the Medicare-like coverage — and accomplishing single payer by default.

That’s Obama’s plan, isn’t it?

PattyJ on June 16, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I, of all people, am most certainly not asking for additional government intervention. I am merely asking Conservatives to argue intelligently against government intervention–as it is, you’re making straw men of yourselves. One among many possible for-instances: the things you cite as the biggest reasons for the explosion in health care costs are not, empirically, the biggest reasons–they are propaganda talking points only.

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Not sure what your basing this on ? If its the drain illegals are causing on the system thats not propaganda.

LSUMama on June 16, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I have decided, He does not want to imorove programs he wants to destroy and control them. This is truly scary next he will appoint a dissent Czar to help Janet.

LSUMama on June 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM

How are people really insured if they are going to be denied care to keep costs down or they have to wait months for critical and lifesaving treatments? Also, how is it keeping the costs down when we will be paying more in taxes to pay for it?

Blake on June 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

This is what concerns me. My mother is getting up there. Hell I am too. But not just the elderly. Think of all those, young, middle aged, and elderly, that are diabetics, and need dialysis. Or treatment for cancers, or other dibilitating diseases. Think of those waiting in line for transplants. What happens there? In the name of keeping it affordable, those might have to be cut as well, and the people that now use insurance to help function, might get thrown to the curb, if they can’t pay for treatment out of pocket.

This is something the Dems want to rush thru, and it’s just waaaaaaaaay to risky, and waaaaaaaay to expensive, to just let it be passed, then think of the consequences later. It’s insane, and I’m sick of Obama wanting his crap rushed thru, and saying we need it, and we need it NOW, when he has no idea, of the bigger picture. The failure of the stimulus, should give everyone, a great indication as to how this Obama crap will turn out.

capejasmine on June 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

At the same time, the public plan would undercut private insurers in the individual markets, pushing people who got kicked out of an employer group plan towards the Medicare-like coverage — and accomplishing single payer by default.

That’s Obama’s plan, isn’t it?

PattyJ on June 16, 2009 at 11:35 AM

To a T!!!

capejasmine on June 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I’m no economist, but couldn’t the government just give the uninsured a tax credit of each year to buy health insurance in the private sector for SIGNIFICANTLY less than what this Obamascam proposal will cost? Am I missing something?

uncalheels on June 16, 2009 at 10:30 A Well no because that would make sense and we can`t have that ,when spending taxpayers money . What could you be thinking? LOL

LSUMama on June 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM

That’s effectively what’s going on in this cost estimate. The cost comes from a subsidy for health insurance for people under a certain income level and a tax credit for small businesses that provide healthcare.

jonknee on June 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Guess what, genius? She’s right. Those are two of the biggest reasons for high costs in health insurance/care. Of course, you being an economist would know more about health care than little ol’ me who actually works in it….

mjk on June 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Yes, I would, as a matter of fact. (Note also that she did not claim they were “two of the biggest,” she claimed they were “the biggest reason” and “the second biggest reason.)

Robert J. Samuelson had this to say on the subject yesterday:

The central cause of runaway health spending is clear. Hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, either private or governmental. The open-ended payment system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services — and patients to expect them. It also favors new medical technologies, which are made profitable by heavy use. Unfortunately, what pleases providers and patients individually hurts the nation as a whole.

It’s a phenomenon known as “moral hazard.”

hicsuget on June 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM

My brother with a PhD from MIT actually said, “I’ll gladly pay more to help people get insurance.”

Because he probably thinks the more he will pay in taxes can be covered by one less dinner out a week and drinking coffee from the machine at work instead of Starbuck’s three times a week.

You and I know that won’t be the end of it. Soon he will know

Sekhmet on June 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM

If the government has access to everyone’s medical records through the super duper medical information plan, then we will be a step closer to an Orwellian society.

Dhuka on June 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM

And don’t forget. The Obamacare plan curiously has all information about Private Health information (which protects your info as completely confidential) missing. Which is creepy as all get out.

mjk on June 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Your medical records are safely confidential,..until someone loses a laptop, a laptop gets stolen from someone’s car or a backup DVD of all the records comes up missing. Oh, I know, they will have procedures in place to prevent that…just like the procedures of financial institutions that protect your financial information.

belad on June 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM

You need to hate less and think more (although this is a website dominated by Republicans, so I won’t hold my breath).

Hahahahahaha! That is pretty damned funny.

I missed my last “Hate Mongering” seminar hosted by the RNC, so if someone could just give me the Cliff notes version, I’d appreciate it. I forgot who I’m supposed to be hating this week. Oh wait, I’m betting its anyone not CCMH, (Caucasian Christian Male Hetero)…right? I always get that one wrong on the test…

…whereas under a socialized system this choice would be made for you. “Rationing,” with rationing used in a broader sense to mean “the downward adjustment of consumption of a scarce good”, is a feature of any sane market, and eventually we will have to come up with some way to make the market for health care sane in this sense.

1. Does the government making a choice for you encourage you? Can you show sufficient evidence that the government is capable of making choices for individuals that are better than the individual choosing for themselves? What house I buy, what car I drive, what job I work at, what wife I marry, how many children I have…when the Constitution is ignored, what limitations does the government have? This isn’t rhetoric, I want to know where it stops.

2. Rationing in the short term works for emergency situations, however it cannot be sustained and never inspires growth, so it is doomed to stagnate and then crumble. When you have a service provided by people (health services) and the system restricts their income for a highly valued product, you know what will happen? People of talent and ability will avoid the occupation because it does not make sense to have the stress and risk (peoples’ lives are in your hands). Thus, you get both fewer doctors and also less talented doctors. Also, you start shifting the burden of actually diagnosis and care to the less qualified because they are the cheapest. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) will be doing the work of the nurses, the nurses doing the work of the doctors and so forth. The resource of trained medical personnel will become scarce…so then what? Will the government force people to become doctors? Now you have three scarcities; funds for all of the citizens standing in line, advancements in pharmaceuticals and medical equipment and trained medical personnel. Once we are at that point, what is the solution?

3. The free market is not perfect, but its the best we’ve got. Without a doubt we have the best doctors, medicines, hospitals and educational facilities. Are we supposed to throw that all away on a known-to-be-bad replacement? We know from Australia, Canada and the UK that socialized/nationalized insurance is a path to self-destruction. Why do we not tweak and adjust the free market system for health care instead?

4. By downward adjustment, I suppose you mean eliminating the patients requiring medical services? Artificially drive down the demand and of course the price will go down as well. If the government were really efficient, we wouldn’t require ANY medical assistance, we could either manipulate the DNA to remove genetic defects or vulnerabilities or we could start a little population control…both sound like excellent plans, what could go wrong? Oh wait, we are going to breed “taxpayers” to continue paying for this, right? I get easily confused, you’ll have to spell this whole thing out for me again. I’m having trouble visualizing the “downward adjustment” idea.

Geministorm on June 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Actually, I have a plan for you libs. Let’s start by doing what Texas did to help their problems with closing hospitals and doctors leaving…

Tort reform.

Let’s start there, and then we can re-evaluate, ok?

The central cause of runaway health spending is clear. Hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, either private or governmental. The open-ended payment system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services

Guess what? Doctors do this for a reason. #1, they have to protect their asses because lawyers will sue for any old reason and not only destroy the doctor’s personal finances, but then no hospital will touch them nor will an insurance company insure them (at least not something they can afford). Secondly, the doctor’s insurance and educational costs are sky high, so the doctor has to be able to afford to stay in practice, right? Lastly, all of the people that are illegal, unemployed or just can’t afford medical care…if the law states anyone coming into the ER must be treated, how are those expenses recouped? As humanitarians, we *want* to continue the last thing, so maybe we just need to fix the first two things by using a little tort reform, eh?

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water hicsuget. Keep the greatest medical care, but tweak the system, don’t replace it.

Geministorm on June 16, 2009 at 12:10 PM

I forgot to even mention Medicaid and Medicare. They cost the doctors/hospitals now (lose money on), driving up the cost of medical care for everyone else. What happens when everyone is on nationalized healthcare plan? There will be no one to pick up the slack. If doctors/hospitals can’t afford to treat people, the medical MUST worsen.

I find it incredible that people want to play Leaping Lemmings with the lives of 100s of millions of people.

Geministorm on June 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Edit: “…the medical care MUST worsen.”

Geministorm on June 16, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Hey lefties, tell him what you want to hear and he’ll reprogram his lies for you. Maybe give you another 90 days to not pay your mortgage. Maybe all of you should go on ABC with him and bend over for him. I guess the trill jumped from Chris Matthews to Charlie Gibson.

bluegrass on June 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM

When the government selects the cronys I mean accountants to do the study, they say whatever the government wants you to hear

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on June 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM

guntotinglibertarian on June 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM

That 47 million number has been thrown around for years. You’d think if it were true, the number would increase since the population increased too. But it was 47 million in the 90s and it’s 47 million today. Therefore as a % of the population, we have fewer uninsured today than 10-15 years ago. And this with an extra 10 million new illegals that have come here this decade.

angryed on June 16, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Is this another one of those “guestimates” that VP will disclose as poor?

nor on June 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I read an article that said doctors in the UK, on average make the equivalent of $90K a year. Now ask yourself this:

Do you want your doctor to make less than a plumber? For the leftards who don’t get why that’s a bad thing, try a little harder and you might figure it out.

angryed on June 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Your medical records are safely confidential,..until someone loses a laptop, a laptop gets stolen from someone’s car or a backup DVD of all the records comes up missing. Oh, I know, they will have procedures in place to prevent that…just like the procedures of financial institutions that protect your financial information.

belad on June 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM

This was part of our DRs argument about why he closed his practice went to work in ER. Also feels ins companys will access and deny based on all history in file going way back.He also feared employers in future would find loophole and get access somehow to make hiring and firing decisions. Sounds far fetched I know but then again if asked a year ago, if the govt could decide fate of private businesses I would have laughed .So who knows.

LSUMama on June 16, 2009 at 12:55 PM

JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM

If you study hard, work hard, and become successful, you diserve the right to afford expensive health care. If you lay on you butt, don’t study, and don’t work, you don’t diserve the money needed to pay for benifits like those that work. If you are an honest victim of an uncontrolable
Situation, that’s different.

The problem is that Obama puts every dead beat in the category of being a victim of an uncontrolable situation when in reality they don’t excert any effort whatsoever.

The little red hen.

saiga on June 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM

We just committed over 800 billion to a stimulus program that isn’t stimulating
the economy and we’re borrowing to pay for it. We did this because Owebama told
us that it couldn’t wait.
And now we need to hurry and borrow more money to pay for a government
run health plan because the existing plans are expensive? Aren’t the government run portions of the existing healthcare system mismanaged and responsible for driving costs higher?
It’s an enormous leap of faith to think that big government is the solution to anything, let alone this manufactured crisis. Convincing voter’s that we need to commit to another trillion dollars or more of debt at this time and derail one of the few unaffected sectors of the economy is delusional at best, but
more realistically, criminal.
Owebama is telling us that we can keep our doctors and plans if we like them,
and that his changes won’t result in a single payer system, while he KNOWS
that is a lie. He also says a national plan will bring down costs while he clearly doesn’t care how much expanding his power costs.
Unfortunately, he’s not really speaking to us here, but to those who aren’t really paying close attention and those who don’t want to pay for anything.
I’d like to think that there is a future without debt and without this egomaniacal control freak in The Oval Office.
Hopefully there are enough clear thinking people that realize what’s at stake
paying attention.

ontherocks on June 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM

It could be done to give people access to insurance, but there would need to be other measures (tort reform, cross state insurance buying, etc) to bring down costs.

Indeed, being able to buy health insurance from any provider would help a great deal.

In some states, special-interest groups have managed to make it a matter of law that treatments like acupuncture and (I am told) aromatherapy be covered by all health-insurance policies sold within the state. The result is that the cheapest policies available cost over $1,000 monthly. In other states, a basic health-insurance policy costs only a few hundred dollars per month–because it is indeed a “basic” policy.

But what would it take to enable cross-state insurance buying? Federal legislation? We cannot simply wave a magic wand and take away a state’s right to regulate commerce within its borders.

Owen Glendower on June 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Here’s the real motive behind the push for single-payer healthcare. It may sound a little like grassy-knoll conspiratology but it ain’t.

The real reason GM went under is that, while they have only 93,000 employees, they are paying healthcare costs for one million people (retirees).

America is in the same boat with the baby-boomers. If they are allowed to live into their 80′s the whole Ponzi scheme that is “America” will collapse. How to kill them off in a politically correct way? Deny them healthcare. The bastards get sick – the government board says, “we can’t afford that MRI so Die Boomer Die!” (That’s catchy enough for a T-shirt.) Presto-chango problem solved.

Il Duce’s new program should be called, “The Iceflow Solution.” (When the old-timers could no longer pull their weight, the Eskimos used to put them on an iceflow and let them drift away into oblivion.)

lonesomecharlie on June 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM

It will cost 3-4 trillion to insure everybody and then the price will go up drastically.. Of course, when you increase demand (50 million formerly uninsured) and keep supply static (number of doctors) costs go up and services go down.

I never thought I’d see the day when T-Bonds became junk instruments and medical care sank to the level of Somalia.America’s greatest president evah is not quite there yet but in the words of another Chairman of the Board “Just give me a little more time.”

MaiDee on June 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM

lonesomecharlie on June 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM

But none of that has anything to do with private health insurance, which is what they are trying to kill, now. You are close, but Il Douche is not just trying to put the old boomers out on the ice, he’s trying to destroy the US, as a whole.

You keep hear Il Douche complaining about the cost of health care, but the federal government need only worry about the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Private health insurance is unrelated to the federal government’s expenses. In trying to take over all health insurance, Il Douche is guaranteeing ruin for all, old and young. The only ones who come out ahead are the poor and lazy who just leech off of everyone else, to begin with, so they never lose.

This nation is very, very close to the point of no return. Affirmative action will be the death of us, literally.

progressoverpeace on June 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM

And the Lord Obama said unto the masses, ” Rise up Joseph Stalin and come forth”.

bluegrass on June 17, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2