CBO Shows Public Option Dramatically Lowers Costs. AMA Supports Public Opton.
The information contained in the following article may be what we've been looking for!
The CBO just showed that by including a Public Option into the numbers, that we're able to cut costs 40%!!!!
AND!!!! It appears the AMA now supports the Public Option!!!
Spread the word!
______________________________________________
New Budget Estimate Of Public Plan Proves It Lowers Cost And Covers More Americans
A couple of weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary score of the health care legislation under consideration in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill was estimated to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, while reducing the number of uninsured by "only" one-third. As many informed bloggers noted at the time, the cost estimate was incomplete because the legislation that the CBO reviewed did not contain language about a public health insurance plan or an employer mandate.
Nevertheless, Republicans seized on the opportunity to engage in merciless political attacks, citing the incomplete CBO score as proof that health care reform is not worth doing:
John McCain: "[The CBO estimate] should be a wake up call for all of us to scrap the current bill and start over in a true bipartisan fashion."
John Boehner: "[T]he public option would cost over $1 trillion, and would cause 23 million Americans to lose their private health care coverage."
Lindsey Graham: "The CBO estimates were a death blow to a government run health care plan."
The HELP Committee has since added language for a public plan option to its legislation, as well as an employer mandate provision. The AP reports the new results:
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. [...]
The [employer mandate] provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.
In other words, the addition of the public plan dramatically reduced the overall cost of the bill and ensured coverage of almost all Americans. So what excuses will McCain, Boehner, Graham, and other Republicans offer now? Their attacks were not only found to be baseless, but their concerns about the costs and coverage have also been addressed.
UpdateThe incoming president of the American Medical Association, Dr. J. James Rohack, said his organization now supports a public plan, after initially indicating its opposition. The AMA supports an "American model" that includes both "a private system and a public system, working together," he said.UpdateJonathan Cohn has more.
"The [employer mandate] provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals."
- You're talking about the mandate that will force employers to cover more than 70% of premiums for full-time employees, plus a portion of the tab for part-time employess, OR a fee of 8% of their payroll otherwise.
Why not call it for what it is - a backdoor tax, that will be passed on to everyone?
Additional problem with this creative window dressing is that in the vast majority of cases the actual costs of anything have been far larger than estimates.
July 2, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It says the employer option also reduces the expense... true. But the point is "Public Option" saves 40%. Probably the better option.
Anyway... this is the letter I just sent my Senators.
Dear Senator X,
Previous positions that the Public Option was just too expensive citing the CBO's figures have lost their punch.
The previous CBO numbers were crunched without including a "Public Option"... More recently the CBO included the "Public Option" and RE-Crunched the numbers...
Guess what? By including the Public Option in our HealthCare plans we would SAVE 40% over previous estimates! That's right! Instead of costing over $1 TRILLION dollars... it would now cost just over $600 Billion...
You have no legs to stand on.
Please support the Public Option.
Sincerely,
July 2, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The independently-funded healthcare policy research organization, The Commonwealth Fund, compared possible savings 'a health insurance exchange' could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer only a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all.
Commonwealth's study found cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020, compared with projected trends for that period, would range from $3.0 trillion under a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance paying providers at Medicare rates in competition with private plans, to $2.0 trillion for a public plan paying providers at rates between Medicare and private plan rates, to $1.2 trillion in the private plan-only scenario. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012. 'Such an exchange' would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.
Under the Medicare-like plan along with private insurance, all U.S. residents would be required to obtain health coverage. The plan would establish a new government-sponsored health program for people younger than age 65 who are not eligible for Medicare. More than 40 million people would be expected to enroll in the program, according to Cathy Schoen of the Commonwealth Fund.
The government-operated insurance exchange would be similar to an existing program in Massachusetts and would allow people to compare coverage offered by private insurers and the new public program. In addition, the plan supports wide adoption of health information technology, better disease prevention efforts and 'changes to the insurance payment system' that promote efficiency. Health spending would continue to increase under the plan, but at a slower rate than current projections over the next 10 years. The Commonwealth Fund said the plan would reduce annual health care spending growth from a projected 6.7% to 5.5% and save a cumulative total of about '$3 trillion' by 2020, adding a national health insurance exchange program that includes a federally managed health insurance option could potentially save $1.8 trillion more than a plan consisting only of private plans.
The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.
The proposal's advocates have argued that a government-sponsored insurance plan would offer the 46 million uninsured Americans an affordable alternative to costly private insurance, adding that It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to strealine, innovate and compete.
Thank You !
July 3, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink