CBO Issues Report On Senate Health Bill: Costs $849B/10 Years And Reduces Deficit By $127B
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Nov 18, 2009 5:00pm
A health-care overhaul proposed by Senate Democrats will cost $849 billion over 10 years, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, and slash the deficit by $127 billion over the next decade.
The price tag is just under President Barack Obama's target of $900 billion over 10 years.
The estimates, from the Congressional Budget Office, also showed that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 31 million people, said the Journal, citing a senior Senate leadership aide.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been anxiously awaiting the CBO's price tag for the bill before moving to debate on the Senate floor. The first procedural vote could come later this week on the bill. Obama wants to sign a health-care reform bill before the end of the year.
Like a bill that passed the House on Nov. 7, the Senate's bill aims to cover most Americans, bar insurers from denying coverage to sick people, set up insurance "exchanges" where people can shop for coverage and fine those who don't get insurance. It also sets up a government-run insurance plan, expected to enroll about 6 million people.
But Reid faces a number of hurdles in getting a bill through the Senate, including concerns about the measure's cost. Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., are among two of Reid's fellow Democrats who have openly worried about the cost of health-care reform.
Per what I've been told from Senate leadership offices, the Senate health care bill will:
- cut the budget deficit by $127 billion over 10 years
- cut the budget deficit by $650 billion in the second decade
- extend guaranteed coverage to more than 9% of Americans -- including a 31 million person reduction in the uninsured
Reid will probably file cloture on the motion to proceed tomorrow. The CBO's report should go up on the Senate Democrats site shortly.
Login or Register to post comments.
the senate bill does not raise taxes on the uber-wealthy in order to help pay for the health reform. instead, it taxes "Cadillac" health plans. my response to that is: boooo!
fucking booooo!
every american should have "Cadillac" health plans. all the frills, all the benefits, whatever. and, instead of viewing the most basic health insurance as "normal" and more comprehensive plans as being high fallutin, i think we should think about it in the exact opposite way. anything less than the best health care for american citizens is unacceptable.
tax the uber-rich to pay for this, not the americans that have the health care plans that we should ALL have*
[*i do not have a "Cadillac" health plan]
Fines for no insurance...eff YOU!
The Abortion hurdles...eff you!
Eff insurance. It's a crock.
Just universal healthcare for ALL americans.
No, it's not going to be perfect. But it's a heck of a lot better than what we have now. And considerably more than I expected from Harry Reid. Sometimes, you have to take one step at a time. This bill would help 31 million people, including many of my friends. I'm sending Senator Reid a thank you.
...doesn't fine me for not buying or imprison me for not complying. This is extortion, not reform.
We the people are extorted daily on many fronts.
I wonder how long we will continue to accept it?
When conservatives complain about forcing people to buy a product they don't want, I see the point. In fact, this bill will make criminals out of those that don't buy insurance. Think about that, if you don't buy an overpriced fraudulent product you become a criminal.
How exactly IS your job going at CIGNA Health care?
The only people who will be 'helped' will be the execs at the insurance companies - the ones who'll get millions in bonuses for 'scoring' premiums from the 30-40 million who will be forced to buy in.
I am worried. My husband has a good plan, but WE PAY FOR IT PRIVATELY.
I hope the premiums go down some, it's killing us. But the medical care it provides saved my husband's life.
What are you going to do? Save money for a funeral?
"Sometimes, you have to take one step at a time"
Medicare was passed 44 years ago. It is a single payer system for older Americans. If taking one step at a time worked, we would have Medicare for all by now. This is crap. Cover everyone and get rid the inefficient for profit insurance companies. Simple as that.
From FoxNoise except Beck. Where CBO
C- Communist
B- By
O- Obama
"...and fine those who don't get insurance"
THIS is what he was waiting for?
Michael Moore is right, this is another sham. And it's a shame.
When people finally realize what this "reform" and "public option" means, there are going to be a LOT of pissed-off people. And it pisses me off to no end that anything that goes wrong will be blamed on the Liberals/Progressives when it doesn't come close to being anything a Liberal would want.
We never really stood a chance, did we?
Honestly, part of the blame SHOULD go on the "Liberals/Progressives" in Congress for bending over for the RW. What you should have said was that "anything that goes wrong will only be blamed on the Liberals/Progressives when it doesn't come close to being anything a Liberal would want."
And no, we never did stand a chance.
...of course, when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are considered Liberals and Andrea Mitchell STILL calls Joe Lieberman a Democrat...yes, yes, I prefer the distinction you added. Thank you.
How much is it going to cost me as a citizen for coverage per month?
Just geustimate a bottom line for me, OK?
The only way you will find out is after they jam this 2,000 page Tootsie Roll up your ass.
SEC. 209. LIMITATION ON PREMIUM INCREASES UNDER EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.
(a) In General- The annual increase in the premiums charged under any Exchange-participating health benefits plan may not exceed 150 percent of the annual percentage increase in medical inflation for the 12-month period ending in June of the prior year, unless the plan receives approval for a higher rate increase in accordance with subsection (b) or (c).
OK, so much for keeping premiums down. What about assistance?
SEC. 243. AFFORDABILITY PREMIUM CREDIT.
(a) In General- The affordability premium credit under this section for an affordable credit eligible individual enrolled in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is in an amount equal to the amount (if any) by which the premium for the plan (or, if less, the reference premium amount specified in subsection (c)), exceeds the affordable premium amount specified in subsection (b) for the individual.
(b) Affordable Premium Amount-
(1) IN GENERAL- The affordable premium amount specified in this subsection for an individual for monthly premium in a plan year shall be equal to 1/12 of the product of--
(A) the premium percentage limit specified in paragraph (2) for the individual based upon the individual's family income for the plan year; and
(B) the individual's family income for such plan year.
(2) PREMIUM PERCENTAGE LIMITS BASED ON TABLE- The Commissioner shall establish premium percentage limits so that for individuals whose family income is within an income tier specified in the table in subsection (d) such percentage limits shall increase, on a sliding scale in a linear manner, from the initial premium percentage to the final premium percentage specified in such table for such income tier.
(c) Reference Premium Amount- The reference premium amount specified in this subsection for a plan year for an individual in a premium rating area is equal to the average premium for the 3 basic plans in the area for the plan year with the lowest premium levels. In computing such amount the Commissioner may exclude plans with extremely limited enrollments.
Table: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:...
If you can decipher this then you are a genius.
I found the answer. So I must be a genius. (joke)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:61...
S.391
Healthy Americans Act (Introduced in Senate)
Subtitle C--Eligibility for Premium and Personal Responsibility Contribution Subsidies
SEC. 121. ELIGIBILITY FOR PREMIUM SUBSIDIES.
(a) Individuals and Families At or Below the Poverty Line- For any calendar year, in the case of a covered individual who is determined to have a modified adjusted gross income that is at or below 100 percent of the poverty line, as applicable to a family of the size involved, the covered individual is entitled under this section to an income-related premium subsidy equal to the basic premium subsidy amount.
(b) Partial Subsidy for Other Individuals and Families-
(1) IN GENERAL- For any calendar year, in the case of a covered individual who is determined to have a modified adjusted gross income that is greater than 100 percent of the poverty line, as applicable to a family of the size involved, but below the applicable percentage of the poverty line, as applicable to a family of the size involved, the covered individual is entitled under this section to an income-related premium subsidy equal to the basic premium subsidy amount reduced by the amount determined under paragraph (2).
(2) AMOUNT OF REDUCTION- The amount of the reduction determined under this paragraph is the amount that bears the same ratio to the basic premium subsidy amount as--
(A) the excess of--
(i) such individual's modified adjusted gross income, over
(ii) an amount equal to 100 percent of the poverty line as applicable to a family of the size involved, bears to
(B) the excess of--
(i) an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the poverty line as applicable to a family of the size involved, over
(ii) an amount equal to 100 percent of the poverty line as applicable to a family of the size involved.
(3) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE- For purposes of this subsection, the applicable percentage is 400 percent.
(c) Basic Premium Subsidy Amount- For purposes of this section, the term `basic premium subsidy amount' means, with respect to any individual, the lesser of--
(1) the annual premium for the HAPI plan under which the individual is a covered individual; or
(2) the weighted average of the premium for HAPI plans of the same class of coverage (as described in section 111(d)(1)) as the individual's in the applicable coverage area.
(d) Change in Status Notification-
(1) IN GENERAL- If an individual's modified adjusted income changes such that the individual becomes eligible or ineligible for a subsidy under this section, the individual shall report that change to the HHA of the individual's State of residence not more than 60 days after the change takes effect. If an individual reports the change within 60 days under the preceding sentence, the individual's HAPI plan coverage shall be deemed credible coverage for the purposes of maintaining coverage for preexisting conditions.
(2) ADJUSTMENT- The HHA shall adjust the premium subsidy of such individual to take effect on the first month after the date of the notification under paragraph (1) for which the next premium payment would be due from the individual.
(e) Catastrophic Event- A State may develop mechanisms to ensure that covered individuals do not have a break in coverage due to a catastrophic financial event.
SEC. 122. ELIGIBILITY FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY CONTRIBUTION SUBSIDIES.
(a) Full Subsidy- To meet the eligibility requirements under subtitle B for an HHA, for any taxable year, in the case of a covered individual who is determined to have a modified adjusted gross income that is below 100 percent of the poverty line as applicable to a family of the size involved, an HHA shall provide to such an individual a subsidy equal to the full amount of any personal responsibility contributions applicable to such individual.
(b) Partial Subsidy- To meet the eligibility requirements under subtitle B for an HHA, for any taxable year, in the case of a covered individual who is determined to have a modified adjusted gross income that is at or above 100 percent of the poverty line as applicable to a family of the size involved, an HHA may provide to such an individual a subsidy equal to the part of the amount of any personal responsibility contributions applicable to such individual.
SEC. 123. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.
(a) Determination of Modified Adjusted Gross Income-
(1) IN GENERAL- In this subtitle, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means adjusted gross income (as defined in section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)--
(A) determined without regard to sections 86, 135, 137, 199, 221, 222, 911, 931, and 933 of such Code; and
(B) increased by--
(i) the amount of interest received or accrued during the taxable year which is exempt from tax under such Code; and
(ii) the amount of any social security benefits (as defined in section 86(d) of such Code) received or accrued during the taxable year.
(2) TAXABLE YEAR TO BE USED TO DETERMINE MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME- In applying this subtitle to determine an individual's annual premiums, the covered individual's modified adjusted gross income shall be such income determined using the individual's most recent income tax return or other information furnished to the Secretary by such individual, as the Secretary may require.
(b) Poverty Line- In this subtitle, the term `poverty line' has the meaning given such term in section 673(2) of the Community Health Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any revision required by such section.
(c) Other Procedures To Determine Subsidies- The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to be used by HHAs to calculate the premium subsidies under section 121 and personal responsibility subsidies under section 122 for individuals whose modified adjusted gross income described in subsection (a)(2) is significantly lower than the modified adjusted gross income of the year involved.
(d) Special Rule for Unlawfully Present Aliens- A health insurance issuer shall remit to the Federal Government any funding, including any subsidy payments, received by such issuer from the Federal Government on behalf of any adult alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.
(e) Special Rule for Aliens- The Secretary of Homeland Security may not extend or renew an alien's eligibility for status in the United States or adjust the status of an alien in the United States if the alien owes--
(1) a premium payment for a HAPI plan that is past due; or
(2) a penalty incurred for failing to pay such a premium.
(f) No Discharge in Bankruptcy- In the case of any bankruptcy filed by or on behalf of any person after the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, under title 11, United States Code, any penalty imposed with respect to such person for failure to pay a HAPI plan premium shall not be subject to discharge under such title.
If by Obama's target of under $900 Billion they mean the arbitrary number of "around $900 billion" he mentioned in a speech once.
2.5%?
That'd be $2,500 if you made $100,000.
Cracks me up!
Must say I've seen barely a word of criticism about this bill on C&L - in fact I don't think this site even bothered to cover Kucinich's statement about why he voted "no".
Seems C&L has decided there are some things its readership just doesn't need to hear.
I wrote this post simply on the CBO's report. There's no value judgment involved in this; all it does is cut off the GOP's "deficit spending" concern trolling at the knees.
However, I've stated more than a few times that I think that this bill is a bitter pill and that I'm in favor of single payer, as have most of the contributers on this site. I've also stated for the record that I will not and cannot support the bill if anything like the Stupak amendment is in it.
No, this bill is not perfect. However, I do believe that taking a long view of how change is achieved in this country (and it's never been in one fell swoop), that accepting this as a starting position and then pushing for more progressive incremental change is the way for this to work.
If you want true reform then the for profit insurance industry needs to be elimated period. Medicare is 44 years old (a single payer system). What are we waiting for?
When will the Dems control both houses (with close to 60 votes in Senate) and the Presidency after an election where he won an a campaign slogan "Change We can Believe in" again? How many years do we have to wait?
Do you think that Medicare appeared 44 years ago fully realized?
No.
It's been tweaked and tinkered with. And it continues to be, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
So will healthcare reform.
Now, you can stomp your feet and demand that it be perfect RIGHT NOW!!!, but that shows your unfamiliarity with the way things work in Washington.
We have never been a country that accepts sweeping change in one fell swoop. We were still fighting for basic civil rights 100 years after the Civil War. FDR was unable to implement all of his plans for the New Deal, because he got too much pushback.
Yes, Obama has not been a strong leader on this and I'm less than impressed with our Congressional leaders allowing the minority party to frame the debate on healthcare reform. There's no one on this site who will argue that point. But that should show you that even with the majorities we have, it will always be an uphill battle to effect progressive change.
I referenced a program created 44 years ago that is a single payer system. So expanding Medicare to everyone would be the next logical step. So I guess 44 years isn't enough time to implement single payer for everyone?
BTW I am familiar with how Washington works, so please save your breath.
Once again, Obama does not lead on this issue and fully explain a Medicare for all type system because he is afraid to lose all the money from the insurance companies for himself and Democratic party. The insurance companies should not make a profit on basic health insurance. The American people need a true leader that is willing to explain and sell a good plan.
All of the advanced nations have universal health care. I will briefly divide the systems into four classes. Some people would divide them further. I don't think you can divide them less.
1 - A National Health system as in Britain and FInland. The government owns most of the hospitals and clinics and hires the health care people directly. Doctors, nurses et al work for the government. This is the system I personally would prefer. It is full socialized medicine.
2 - A single payer system as in Canada and Australia. The health providers are private, the payment for their services comes from the government. HR 676 would be such a system.
3 - The 'Bismark' system as found in Germany with a employer/employee joint system of payment for private health care providers.
4 - Private payment via not-for-profit health care insurance as found in Switzerland.
and 5th 'system' found in no advanced country except us (if you are a dreamer and think we are advanced) - The 'system' found in the rest of the world, which is to say no system. Payment is made out of pocket or through barter. No payment equals no care.
The United States has all five of these systems, except #4 which for the US is mostly for-profit insurance which no advanced country allows.
All of the advanced countries have universal systems that deliver better for much less than we spend.
The absolutely unforgivable aspect of this current so called health care reform proposal is that it continues the barbarity of for-profit health insurance.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest which cannot be resolved. Except by prohibiting it.
This is a system of a failed state.
cept hr676.
Okay then!
This is budget-cutting bill.
A vote against this bill is a vote for adding $127B to the deficit.
If you vote against this bill, you commit inter-generational theft.
Suck it, Leiberman.
W
Did you really think Obama and Emanuel were straight with the American People? Pathetic.
Single payer is the only solution that will truly work. I hate all of the lies and crap coming from the right and I want to yell back. At the same time I have nothing to fight for.
The PO is crap. It won't help the uninsured. It won't cover everyone. It won't lower costs. It keeps the inefficient for profit insurance companies still in business. It does nothing to help the under-insured. It does nothing to stop bankruptcies due to medical bills. It basically sucks.
I want to get involved and call my Congress members, but what am I going to say? Vote for a crappy PO? Vote for something that will never come up for vote? Vote for the status quo?
The one thing I am going to do is vote and work for candidates that will fight for single payer. I will also work against Dems that do not support single payer. If that means Obama or other Dems lose to Republicans, so be it. Their actions need to have consequences.
F the sheep that follow Obama.
Look at the bank bailouts and both Democrats and Republicans received hefty donations as reported at http://eme.v1-p.com/?p=37 Then you can look at trips and donations your Congressmen/women take. It is sick when elected officials sell our country out.
Eme
Login or Register to post comments.