Death Blow to Health Insurance Reform?

Will Lindsey Graham be right about something? Here's hoping: 

The promised change won't come without a substantial price tag, as new estimates from the Congressional Budget Office highlighted. Democrats had hoped to craft a bill costing less than $1 trillion over 10 years, but the CBO analysis suggested the cost of one Senate measure could be closer to $1.6 trillion.

Appearing alongside Dodd, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the CBO report a "death blow" to what he characterized as "a government-run health plan."

More here.

Comments

[Kyle Jordan]

I'd like to hope so. However, there's a certain desensitizing that's gone on with huge numbers as of the last couple of years or so. I wouldn't be so certain that $1.6 Trillion will be seen as too different from $1 Trillion-ish by people across the board.

It'd be nice to be wrong about this. Let's see if it works out that way.

[Rich]

I agree with Kyle. And it seems, based on the festivities of the past few months, that a little thing like actually paying for this thing won't be a show-stopper.

[ed]

a little thing like actually paying for this thing won't be a show-stopper

It never has been in the past. All the "great" social programs are insolvent or headed toward insolvency. Kicking this time bomb down the road is what Congress does best, aided and abetted by those who put them in office (we the people).

[domoarrigato]

It amazing to me that the same people that say healthcare is too expensive propose spending 1.0-1.6 trillion to fix the problem.

[Xeones]

...aided and abetted by those who put them in office (we the people).

Yo, fuck the people.

[mark]

Appearing alongside Dodd, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Whoa. You wouldn't post anything Lindsey Graham said about anything else, so why this?

[John]

But Goldman Sachs is having a record year this year mostly because the TARP money that went to AIG allowed AIG to make good on its policies to Goldman Sachs. Sorry lefties. No socialized healthcare for you. There is no money. Obama spent it all bailing out Goldman Sachs, continueing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and paying off crooked congressman in the stimulus.

If Obamacare goes down over concerns about the deficit, how long before the lefties realize that they were had? Or is Obama really a cult of personality and they won't care?

[Mike in PA]

I tend to think the democratic party gains more from no government health-care. This way they can always say how hard their trying for it and get their moronic constituents to keep voting for them.

On the flip-side, if government health-care really gets enacted, they will continually have to defend how bad it is. Of course, once they get it, it will never be able to go away.

[TrickyVic]

"""It amazing to me that the same people that say healthcare is too expensive propose spending 1.0-1.6 trillion to fix the problem."""

Yeah, it is. But it's only 100 Billion a year. We are spending 5 Trillion in same amount of time for defense. I don't hear many complaints there.

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

It's going to cost much more than 1.0-1.6 trillion. Didn't Medicare/aid turn out to be tenfold more expensive than they were initially projected to be?

[Mike in PA]

Funny thing is that they think they can drive down costs by having more preventative care.

Well, unless they can find a cure for death, people will die of something. Their short-term savings will be crushed by the long-term costs of treating more complex illnesses and longer life-spans.

[John]

"Since 1970 - even without the prescription drug benefit - Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067

Medicare is responsible for most of the rise in healthcare over the last 30 years. Yet, somehow making medicare bigger is going to reduce costs?

[TrickyVic]

Since end of life with a terminal disease is often associated with high cost, it seems natural that if we are going to entertain the idea of allowing government to make decisions as to if they will get that care, it seems logical to allow the patient the decision to for go the cost by opting for assisted suicide.

[John]

"Since end of life with a terminal disease is often associated with high cost, it seems natural that if we are going to entertain the idea of allowing government to make decisions as to if they will get that care, it seems logical to allow the patient the decision to for go the cost by opting for assisted suicide."

You are right there vic. If we would just kill the sick, we would have a lot less healthcare costs. Inevitiably that is where this kind of thinking leads people to. Of course, what starts as a choice quickly turns into doctors killing their patients. That is exactly what happened in Holland. Man, that is some really sick shit you are writing. I hope you were just trolling.

[Hugh Akston]

Since end of life with a terminal disease is often associated with high cost, it seems natural that if we are going to entertain the idea of allowing government to make decisions as to if they will get that care, it seems logical to allow the patient the decision to forego the cost by opting for "assisted suicide".

fixed.

We are spending 5 Trillion in same amount of time for defense. I don't hear many complaints there.

Perhaps you ought to have your hearing examined.

[TrickyVic]

"""You are right there vic. If we would just kill the sick, we would have a lot less healthcare costs."""

Who said kill? You are giving people an option.

"""Perhaps you ought to have your hearing examined."""

Who's complaing about the defense budget?

[Mike in PA]

Hey Vic,

If we forego those costs by opting for the early-out plan, can we give the offsets to our children?

[The Angry Optimist]

Where is this 5 trillion for defense coming from? What number is that based on?

[TrickyVic]

We have been spending over 500 Billion per year for defense for the last 4 years or so. Assuming that doesn't change, that's 1 Trillion every 2 years. So in 10 years we will have spent over 5 Trillion. 10 years is the term on the 1 or 1.6 Trillion health care tab.

[John]

"Who said kill? You are giving people an option."

You are telling people they can't have any healthcare but they do have the option of killing themselves if they don't like the options of dying without treatment. Ok.

[TrickyVic]

"""If we forego those costs by opting for the early-out plan, can we give the offsets to our children?"""

If it is true that cost of the care would be placed on our children, then yes, you are saving them money.

But its not about that. It's about patient choices. I'm merely pointing out the hypocracy in the concept of government claiming the authority to make end of life treatment decisions choices, while denying you the ability to make that choice. What's the difference between government denying your treament that will result in death, and you just opting straight for the death?

Shit, I thought this was a pro-freedom message board? Why not give greater freedom by allowing the option for assisted suicide?

[Hugh Akston]

Who's complaing about the defense budget?

Veronique de Rugy for one. Gillespie for another.

And that's just me being too lazy to Google it.

[TrickyVic]

"""You are telling people they can't have any healthcare but they do have the option of killing themselves if they don't like the options of dying without treatment. """

Opposed to you can't get any healthcare so fuck you.

If you have a problem with assisted suicide laws like they have in Oregon, just say so. But don't you agree that it would be unfair to give end of life decisions to government and not the citiznery?

[SugarFree]

Mike,

they will continually have to defend how bad it is.

If only this were true. Once they get it passed, all problems will be attributed to underfunding and those dastardly rich people who can still afford private care. Expect a sales tax or VAT on non-publicly funded health care to be proposed as a funding source.

[Hugh Akston]

Shit, I thought this was a pro-freedom message board? Why not give greater freedom by allowing the option for assisted suicide?

I'm all for suicide being as painless and easily obtainable as possible. But you're couching the question in terms of government interest and Obamacare cost saving. Having the agents of the state (including doctors, potentially) involved in the decision to end ones life raises conflicts of interest and ethical issues to boggle the mind.

The two concepts are so separate that the light from government interest should take a thousand years just to reach assisted suicide.

[John]

What Hugh said. No. I don't want people making end of life decisions with the help of government agents.

[TrickyVic]

The only people I've seen complain about the cost is here at Reason. That's about it.

"""Having the agents of the state (including doctors, potentially) involved in the decision to end ones life raises conflicts of interest and ethical issues to boggle the mind."""

The government would not be involved with an assisted suicide decision. It would be consumer choice only.

[Tricky Prickears]

Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa), Senate Finance Committee, seems to think there is a bipartisan solution, somewhere. I don't know. What I do know, is that my state can't afford to continue to subsidize hospitals for the treatment of uninsured patients. It's so bad, that it's been suggested that just giving insurance, to the uninsured, would be cheaper than all of the subsidies that are going to the hospitals. Several hospitals have threatened to close their ERs or shut down completely. In Pennsylvania, Temple University Healthcare System, is trying to consolidate some of the smaller "inner city" hospitals that they own. Of course, this has many community activists in an uproar.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't trust the government to run healthcare, and I don't trust private insurance companies to run it in the current system. What I fear, is that there will be a government funded system, administered by a few "select" private companies (probably the ones that can donate the most money to various campaigns). This, of course, will provide an unfair competitive advantage, and force the smaller companies out of business.

I don't hear many people talking about just eliminating the employer based system. I think I heard Howard Dean talk about it on NPR about 5 or 6 months ago, but he seems to have backed off of this, now. I've been saying this for years. This system does not provide competition which benefits the "consumer". It benefits the employer. We have three parties involved. The insurance company, which proves the coverage, the employee, which uses the services, and the employer, which pays the bills (for the most part). If I were running a business where there was this distinction between people who were using the services, and people who were paying the bills, I would be inclined to cater more towards the ones paying the bills. I would be much more concerned with the prices I could offer, rather than the services I provided. And only the prices that I could offer to the very large groups. Group rates. What effect does that have on the price for an individual? I think if one wants to seriously consider allowing competition to fix the system, the competition must be for the individual, not the group. Then, the introduction of tax credits for lower wage workers can be implemented. Does this make sense to anyone?

[TrickyVic]

"""What Hugh said. No. I don't want people making end of life decisions with the help of government agents."""

They already do is some respects if your on Medicare. The Obama plan would make it worse. But for those arguing for Obama's plan, why leave the choice only in the hands of the government?

[creech]

"Time" reports that $700 billion is spent every year by Americans on unnecessary health care! And that is with the greedy insurance companies looking over our shoulders and denying various procedures. So, Obamessiah is going to cut the costs of administration - that will mean less auditors, more paying whatever bills and codes come in, etc. So how high is the unnecessary spending going to soar with that regime?? Didn't Medicare end up costing like 10 times as much by 1990 as it supporters first claimed?

[TrickyVic]

"""Veronique de Rugy for one. Gillespie for another.

And that's just me being too lazy to Google it."""

Is that the best you can do without a Google search?

Gillespie's article was about the war spending bill not the actual defense budget, though I have a feeling he would agree. But I've heard very, very little outcry about the defense budget. A Google search may find a few, but I would think spending 5 trillion every 10 years would draw a bigger outcry.

[Mike]

"Democrats had hoped to craft a bill costing less than $1 trillion over 10 years, but the CBO analysis suggested the cost of one Senate measure could be closer to $1.6 trillion."

At least the figures are coming out now. Bush lied about the cost of the prescription drug bill to get it passed.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0312-01.htm

[mark]

Tricky Prickears, have you checked out the Patients' Choice Act?

[Rich]

Is there a technical definition of "unnecessary" health care? If UNC saves or creates the life of just one ...

[Hugh Akston]

I didn't cite any older reason articles because I didn't want to equivocate between Obama's budget and that of his predecessor.

Most MSM editorials that I've read are just swelling with patriotic mucus about how Obama, spending nearly the same amount as his predecessor, really is serious about prosecuting the war on towelheads.

But honestly, I think Kyle's statement from above applies pretty much across the board. Nobody cares just how much money the state is dumping into a giant hole, as long as it is being spent on the right programs with the right team in charge.

[Hugh Akston]

Is there a technical definition of "unnecessary" health care? If UNC saves or creates the life of just one ...

...then all of the people who's treatments weren't approved by the appropriator general can die with pride, knowing that somewhere, someone else was saved or created.

[Rich]

UNC should be Unnecessary _H_ealth Care. Time for some unnecessary lunch! Still looking for that definition, though.

[Tricky Prickears]

Mark, Thanks. I must have missed that. I guess that's why Dean has backed off of it. God forbid there should actually be agreement between parties. The employer system is definitely antiquated. It keeps people trapped in jobs that they don't necessarily want. It discourages people from going out and starting their own business, which is hard enough. It also keeps some trapped in marriages where they are unhappy. Not very romantic, "we got married because she has an excellent healthcare plan where she works".

[TrickyVic]

"""Nobody cares just how much money the state is dumping into a giant hole, as long as it is being spent on the right programs with the right team in charge."""

I'm not so sure, because people do complain about taxes. They don't have a problem until it comes time to pay for it, then they have a problem.

Americans are not great in understanding WE have to pay for it. They love recieving the services, just not fond of paying for them so when they hear about the service, they think the government will pick-up the tab.

When it comes to spending, the dems don't really care, and the republicans only complain when the dems are spending.

[mark]

They don't have a problem until it comes time to pay for it, then they have a problem.

And they will be paying for it, if not via higher taxes than via inflation and lowered standards of living. But don't worry, there will be new "solutions" to those problems when they arrive.

Anyone want to start a "misery pool" and bet on the date of certain crappy outcomes of the current economic trajectory? I'm thinking price controls, "emergency" taxes, and the end of birthright citizenship, to name a few.

X(

[domoarrigato]

Yeah, it is. But it's only 100 Billion a year. We are spending 5 Trillion in same amount of time for defense. I don't hear many complaints there.

Is it fair to say that spending money on a specifically enumerated consititutional responsibility is more acceptable than on healthcare - which is nowhere authorized in the constitution? even so, defense spending is staggering - it needs to be reduced. In anycase, overspending on defense is a poor excuse for overspending on healthcare.

[jsh]

But Goldman Sachs is having a record year this year mostly because the TARP money that went to AIG allowed AIG to make good on its policies to Goldman Sachs. Sorry lefties. No socialized healthcare for you. There is no money. Obama spent it all bailing out Goldman Sachs, continueing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and paying off crooked congressman in the stimulus.

Goldman Sachs on pace for record bonuses: report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090622/bs_nm/us_goldman_bonuses

[Christian Louboutin 2010]

good