Dems on Health Bill: Oops! We Forgot to Cut Costs

New York Times:

As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama's promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.

Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[SangZe]

06:09 PM on 11/17/2009

The so-called health care reform legislation is a hoax perpetrated by Obama and the democrats who are deeply in the pockets of all aspects of the health care industry. The only ones who will gain besides our elected officials will be the execs in the industry. Read Luke Mitchell in the current issue of Harper's. By the end of it all, we will find ourselves bled to death by our corrupted saviors.

[jmpurser]

09:04 AM on 11/11/2009

The ONLY demonstrated priority of the White House for "health care reform" is to save the insurance industry that caused the problems. As a result our "reform" plan is to keep nearly everything exactly the same EXCEPT we're going to use the IRS to force people to sign up with private insurers. The plan is to cram another 50 million people through what was ALREADY the world's most expensive health care system and hope that we can shovel tax dollars into the pockets of the insurance companies fast enough to keep up.

Cost control? We don't need no steenking cost control! Like the "bank reforms" we only considered after we committed 23 Trillion tax dollars to bailing them out, we'll look at actually fixing something AFTER we attach the insurance industry to another government teat.

This began as corporate welfare and it is still on track to become corporate welfare with the American Taliban being the only group the White House and congress don't seem to be willing to abandon in the process.

[MarcusT]

12:53 AM on 11/11/2009

WAIT just one second! If they are going to start talking about cost containment I'm dumping my insurance stock.

[CommunistUtopia]

11:24 PM on 11/10/2009

This is helping the USA to go bankrupt even faster. This is a disaster. Shame on you Pelosi.

[GlennInVenice]

03:34 PM on 11/10/2009

It is a bad bill. I believe that many got so excited about the energy required to get enough signatures to pass it that they let their standards about what the bill would have to actually contain drop below any standard for what would actually address our health care needs as a nation.

There is no robust public option. The public option that is in there is not universally accessible. Thus there is a requirement for millions to buy insurance from the very corporations that put us in this bind to begin with. That is not reform. That is, once again, corporate wellfare.

I am surprised that we have the Sentate to stop the bill afterall.

The House of Representatives needs to go back to work. Drop the bill that is 2000 pages long (like too big to fail, it is too long to comprehend). Review the objective of the bill by recalling the actual problem that you are out to solve. Put some lines in the sand before you begin. Then legislate responsibly in a manner that shows accountability to the American people.

[bigbluenat4]

03:50 PM on 11/10/2009

It is not a FINAL bill, It is the bill that was passed, but the house bill needs to be reconciled with the senate bill(whenever they pass one). So freaking out about the House bill is an exercise in futility.

[hhayden]

07:23 PM on 11/10/2009

It shows what their intent is. The cost will be at least three times what thay are saying. The final version will have all the last minute cr'ap Pelosi and her gang will insert that they won't let us see in advance.

[CJWebber]

03:32 PM on 11/10/2009

So they spent all this time working out a bill, but oops! they forgot to cut costs. Yeah, right. That's believable.

[bigbluenat4]

03:51 PM on 11/10/2009

According to the CBO, the bill does cut costs. Why would people not read the CBO report?

[Papa Swamp]

03:11 PM on 11/10/2009

The Bill is dead in the water. It violates the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The CBO just report this.
"CBO and JCT have determined that the bill contains several private-sector and
intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
The total cost to the private sector of those mandates, as estimated by CBO and JCT,
would greatly exceed the threshold established in that act for private entities
($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation)."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell_mgr_amendment_update.pdf

[bigbluenat4]

03:47 PM on 11/10/2009

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal
Government and State, local, and tribal governments;
(2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration
by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and
tribal governments without adequate Federal funding, in a
manner that may displace other essential State, local, and
tribal governmental priorities;
(3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation
establishing or revising Federal programs containing
Federal mandates affecting State, local, and tribal governments,
and the private sector by—
(A) providing for the development of information about
the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation;
and
(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information
to the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives
before the Senate and the House of Representatives
vote on proposed legislation;
(4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress
on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any
particular instance;
(5) to require that Congress consider whether to provide
funding to assist State, local, and tribal governments in complying
with Federal mandates, to require analyses of the impact
of private sector mandates, and through the dissemination of
that information provide informed and deliberate decisions by
Congress and Federal agencies and retain competitive balance
between the public and private sectors;
2 USC 1501.

http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/unfund.pdf

What part does it violate?

[Papa Swamp]

04:47 PM on 11/10/2009

The specific part is Sec. 424(b)(1)
‘‘(1) CONTENTS.—If the Director estimates that the direct
cost of all Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint
resolution will equal or exceed $100,000,000 (adjusted annually
for inflation) in the fiscal year in which any Federal private
sector mandate in the bill or joint resolution (or in any nec-
essary implementing regulation) would first be effective or in
any of the 4 fiscal years following such fiscal year, the Director
shall so state, specify the estimate, and briefly explain the
basis of the estimate.

The purpose of the UMRA:
On 15 March 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted, setting up procedures to keep congress from imposing costs on states without appropriating funds. The UMRA requires analysis of any bill expected to cost state, tribunal, or local governments more that US$50 million. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) must perform this analysis. The same type of analysis is required for bills projected to cost the private sector US$100 million or more.

If a mandate is expected to cost lower levels of government or the private sector more than US$100 million, house and senate committees are required to show where funding will come from to offset these costs. If a committee fails to provide this information, the bill can be removed from consideration. However, a majority vote can keep such a bill alive, resulting in an expensive unfunded mandate.

[HST]

04:07 PM on 11/10/2009

How nice of you to leave out the fact the CBO reported the bill will REDUCE the deficit.

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387

[bigbluenat4]

04:10 PM on 11/10/2009

Thanks for the rational point. Fanned!

[Papa Swamp]

04:33 PM on 11/10/2009

That is the old Oct 7 assessment. Not the latest and has nothing to do with the UMRA.

[progressiveconnie]

02:49 PM on 11/10/2009

GOOD MORNING!!! MY FELLOW HOMO SAPIENS WHICH MEANS THE SPECIES WHO IS WISE.
It is sobering to think that America's U.S Senators have received so much bribe money from the HMO's and Drug Corporations and any U.S. Senator that refuses to vote for a health care bill that includes a public option available to every American who wants it because without such a public option this health care bill will become the biggest swindle bill ever devised by the greedy minds of men must not be reelected because these Senators have sold their votes to the Robber Barons and don't give a damn that 10's of thousands of Americans die every year because they lack affordable health care.
BOTTOM LINE: THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE!!!

[roberto8ag]

01:43 PM on 11/10/2009

It seems that Democrats and Republicans (in power) don't care about cost containment and deficits at all.

At least Republicans can pretend they care where not in power....

[femalevet1977]

01:39 PM on 11/10/2009

Is this when the GOP says, "I told you so, America".

[Chili4me]

01:54 PM on 11/10/2009

Why? Dims will still claim this a victory, then in a few years when their HC sucks they will blame Republicans for taking it over.

[SocialistDistortion]

12:56 PM on 11/10/2009

Oops! You also forgot the reform.

[Papa Swamp]

03:07 PM on 11/10/2009

Bingo!

[niblik]

12:35 PM on 11/10/2009

For crying out loud, stop "writing" articles that are a link to something that requires you to make an account to view.

I get enough email spam as is without signing up for anything else.

[dems08]

12:19 PM on 11/10/2009

Article writer: SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Per mediamatters.org:

NY Times falsely claimed that Obama "campaigned as an antiwar candidate"

SUMMARY: In a New York Times article, SHERYL GAY STOLBERG wrote that President Obama "never served in the military and campaigned as an antiwar candidate." In fact, Obama did not campaign as "an antiwar candidate"; Obama has repeatedly said that he doesn't "oppose all wars" but is opposed to "a dumb war" or "a rash war."

In a March 22 New York Times article, reporter SHERYL GAY STOLBERG wrote that President Obama "never served in the military and campaigned as an antiwar candidate."

In fact, Obama did not campaign as "an antiwar candidate"; as Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has repeatedly said that he doesn't "oppose all wars" but is opposed to "a dumb war" or "a rash war."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200903230021

[Pablo175]

12:29 PM on 11/10/2009

Obama said he would get troops out of Iraq in a year.

????????????????????

[SocialistDistortion]

01:01 PM on 11/10/2009

Do you like to just shout things out at random? Obama never said all troops would be out in a year. He said he would start in a year. He intends to abide by the SOFA agreement, which would see all troops out by 2011.

READ...it'll do wonders for you.

[PWM]

01:11 PM on 11/10/2009

If it was only the troops, that would be easy enough. But Bush moved almost all our military hardware over there over a period of years, Obama cannot just "teleport" that stuff back to their bases.

[dems08]

12:16 PM on 11/10/2009

Article writer: SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Per mediamatters.org:

'NY Times left out key facts in report on AMA'

SUMMARY: The New York Times reported that the American Medical Association opposes President Obama's proposal for a new public health insurance plan, without noting the AMA's inconsistency on the public option or that the AMA doesn't represent most doctors.

A June 15 New York Times article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear reported that the American Medical Association (AMA) "has come out against a central component of [President Obama's] broader health care proposal -- his call for a new public insurance program that would compete with the private plans," and that Obama's scheduled June 15 speech at the AMA convention in Chicago "comes as the president's ideas on health reform are facing mounting criticism -- not only from the A.M.A....

...the June 15 Times article also did not note that the AMA does not represent the majority of doctors.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906150004

[dems08]

12:14 PM on 11/10/2009

Article writer: SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Per mediamatters.org:

'Progressive economists' critiques missing from coverage of "compromise" health co-op plan'

Media figures and outlets have characterized Sen. Kent Conrad's cooperative health insurance proposal as a "compromise," "hybrid," or bipartisan "alternative" to a public insurance option without noting the argument by progressive economists that a public option is necessary for health care reform to be successful.

In a June 11 New York Times article, "Obama Takes His Health Care Case to the Public," SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and Robert Pear reported that Obama "vigorously defended his call for a government-sponsored health plan to compete with private insurers. But back in Washington, a leading Senate Democrat seemed to be looking for a compromise that would limit government involvement." They later explained that Baucus said "the public plan could take the form of an insurance cooperative," and added that "[t]he idea of creating health insurance cooperatives was first floated as a possible compromise by Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906190024