Denver Post: HHS audit says health overhaul will increase costs

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_14942350


Definitely a very mixed conclusion from this. Though I may sound like a moderate hero, it seems the bill is worse than Obama said, but better than Republicans predicted.

[cinyc]

This analysis was completed a week before the vote but suppressed by the Obama administration until late last week.  Gee.  I wonder why.

[Beet]

This analysis was completed a week before the vote but suppressed by the Obama administration until late last week.  Gee.  I wonder why.

Well, it certainly wasn't to hide the nearly identical findings that the same department came to in a in January which had already been released to the media and widely reported.

Also: What does this report actually say? It basically says that in order to insure 34 million more people, more money will be spent in aggregate, and the overall effect on costs will be negligible. But the headline number reported is aggregate spending, which the media is confusing with costs.

[Lief 🗽]

So we're spending 1% more to cover 34 million more people? Sounds good to me.

[War on Want]

So we're spending 1% more to cover 34 million more people? Sounds good to me.

[cinyc]

This analysis was completed a week before the vote but suppressed by the Obama administration until late last week.  Gee.  I wonder why.

Well, it certainly wasn't to hide the nearly identical findings that the same department came to in a in January which had already been released to the media and widely reported.

Also: What does this report actually say? It basically says that in order to insure 34 million more people, more money will be spent in aggregate, and the overall effect on costs will be negligible. But the headline number reported is aggregate spending, which the media is confusing with costs.

Nonsense.  It was to give political cover to those "blue dog" Democrats who voted for the "health care" "reform" bill under the guise that it lowered costs.  It doesn't. 

So we're spending 1% more to cover 34 million more people? Sounds good to me.

Sounds terrible to me.  Most of those people already have "health care".    Government mandated "insurance" is not "health care" - nor a great way to lower costs.  When somebody else pays, costs go up because the person receiving the benefits doesn't care about costs.  Ultimately, things that are not rationed by price are rationed in other ways - usually by time, or worse, by one's connections to scumbagger politicians.

Let's call this "health care" "reform" what it is - a handout to Democrat interest groups that benefits very few others, subsidized on the backs of the so-called rich (but ultimately, all of the productive class, since that goose can't lay a golden enough egg) to the detriment of the real economy outside of the Beltway.  That's why it was a tough sell in Washington. 

[opebo]

...the productive class  

Thanks for the amusing usage.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So we're spending 1% more to cover 34 million more people? Sounds good to me.

Sounds terrible to me.  Most of those people already have "health care".    Government mandated "insurance" is not "health care" - nor a great way to lower costs.  When somebody else pays, costs go up because the person receiving the benefits doesn't care about costs.  Ultimately, things that are not rationed by price are rationed in other ways - usually by time, or worse, by one's connections to scumbagger politicians.

Let's call this "health care" "reform" what it is - a handout to Democrat interest groups that benefits very few others, subsidized on the backs of the so-called rich (but ultimately, all of the productive class, since that goose can't lay a golden enough egg) to the detriment of the real economy outside of the Beltway.  That's why it was a tough sell in Washington. 

A sane person disagrees with the healthcare policy and maturely points out it's flaws while agreeing with the merits of expanding healthcare to everyone and agreeing that the intentions are good but the approach is flawed.

An insane person manages to find a conspiracy theory in healthcare policy by trying to declare an evil plot to give healthcare to favorable voters to enrich their political party.

I'll leave it up to the good people of Atlas to decide which you are.

[Franzl]

It's still worth it. I always strongly doubted its ability to cut costs....but compared to the amount of people that will be insured, I'd say it's worth paying slightly more.

It's a shame we don't seem to care about costs though.

[Brittain33]

Nonsense.  It was to give political cover to those "blue dog" Democrats who voted for the "health care" "reform" bill under the guise that it lowered costs.  It doesn't.  

The cover was about lowering the deficit, not the cost. And it certainly appears to lower per capita cost, as is discussed elsewhere.

Also, it's ludicrous to go haywire over a 1% increase in costs considering how easily that estimate could be off in one direction or another. Would you argue this is no big deal at all if it's off a little bit on the high end and the bill makes no change in costs, or a massive, massive scandal if it turns out to be slightly low and costs increase a skootch more? I should hope not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they don't. Being able to go to an emergency room and get whatever emergency coverage they supply is not "having health care."

[Badger]

Nonsense.  It was to give political cover to those "blue dog" Democrats who voted for the "health care" "reform" bill under the guise that it lowered costs.  It doesn't.  

The cover was about lowering the deficit, not the cost. And it certainly appears to lower per capita cost, as is discussed elsewhere.

Also, it's ludicrous to go haywire over a 1% increase in costs considering how easily that estimate could be off in one direction or another. Would you argue this is no big deal at all if it's off a little bit on the high end and the bill makes no change in costs, or a massive, massive scandal if it turns out to be slightly low and costs increase a skootch more? I should hope not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they don't. Being able to go to an emergency room and get whatever emergency coverage they supply is not "having health care."

Not to mention being the absolute worst way to control health care costs.

[Brittain33]

This analysis was completed a week before the vote but suppressed by the Obama administration until late last week.  Gee.  I wonder why.

This turns out to be wrong, by the way.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023543.php

[cinyc]

Nonsense.  It was to give political cover to those "blue dog" Democrats who voted for the "health care" "reform" bill under the guise that it lowered costs.  It doesn't.  

The cover was about lowering the deficit, not the cost. And it certainly appears to lower per capita cost, as is discussed elsewhere.

Also, it's ludicrous to go haywire over a 1% increase in costs considering how easily that estimate could be off in one direction or another. Would you argue this is no big deal at all if it's off a little bit on the high end and the bill makes no change in costs, or a massive, massive scandal if it turns out to be slightly low and costs increase a skootch more? I should hope not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they don't. Being able to go to an emergency room and get whatever emergency coverage they supply is not "having health care."

Not to mention being the absolute worst way to control health care costs.

If the cost estimates are to be believed, it controls costs better than Obamacare.

[cinyc]

A sane person disagrees with the healthcare policy and maturely points out it's flaws while agreeing with the merits of expanding healthcare to everyone and agreeing that the intentions are good but the approach is flawed.

An insane person manages to find a conspiracy theory in healthcare policy by trying to declare an evil plot to give healthcare to favorable voters to enrich their political party.

I'll leave it up to the good people of Atlas to decide which you are.

A normal poster rationally debates someone with whom they disagree.  An asshole manages to launches ad hominem attacks against those with whom the disagree.

I'll leave it up to the good people of Atlas to decide which you are.

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that those who benefit under Obamacare - i.e. those who currently don't have health INSURANCE - tend to be Democrat-leaning groups.  The biggest (alleged) beneficiaries of the bill are the working poor (tend to be Democrats), younger folks who somehow manage to wiggle out of the bill's mandates (tend to be Democrats), and those with preconditions who cannot work in a job where they get "free" health care as a fringe benefit (again, tend to be Democrats).   Not to mention the unions who got themselves exempted from the onerous tax provisions (Democrats) and Democrat interest groups who benefited from things like the Cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase.

[Brittain33]

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that those who benefit under Obamacare - i.e. those who currently don't have health INSURANCE - tend to be Democrat-leaning groups. 

Yes, and don't forget people with pre-existing conditions and their families, they tend to vote Democratic too. At least after they get shafted by their insurance companies. This bill is a total payoff to them.

[Brittain33]

Democrat interest groups who benefited from things like the Cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase.

Which Democrat interest group benefited from the Cornhusker kickback? The Nebraska legislature is now a Democrat interest group? Can you even explain what the "Louisiana purchase" did and why it was necessary?

[cinyc]

Democrat interest groups who benefited from things like the Cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase.

Which Democrat interest group benefited from the Cornhusker kickback? The Nebraska legislature is now a Democrat interest group? Can you even explain what the "Louisiana purchase" did and why it was necessary?

Both loosely had to do with increased federal reimbursement for medicaid.  Medicaid is government-provided health care for the so-called poor.  Increasing federal reimbursement rates ultimately allow the states to expand the programs even while spending less of their own money.   Poor voters lean Democratic.

[Brittain33]

Both loosely had to do with increased federal reimbursement for medicaid.  Medicaid is government-provided health care for the so-called poor.  Increasing federal reimbursement rates ultimately allow the states to expand the programs even while spending less of their own money.   Poor voters lean Democratic.

They were distinctive because they were requested by specific senators for the unique benefit of their states—in Louisiana's case, defensible, in Nebraska's case, not. Looking past the first-order beneficiary of them as special examples to the second-order benefits completely defeats the purpose of your thesis about why they are in the bill in the first place.

[cinyc]

Both loosely had to do with increased federal reimbursement for medicaid.  Medicaid is government-provided health care for the so-called poor.  Increasing federal reimbursement rates ultimately allow the states to expand the programs even while spending less of their own money.   Poor voters lean Democratic.

They were distinctive because they were requested by specific senators for the unique benefit of their states—in Louisiana's case, defensible, in Nebraska's case, not. Looking past the first-order beneficiary of them as special examples to the second-order benefits completely defeats the purpose of your thesis about why they are in the bill in the first place.

If you want to get technical, they were requested by specific senators for the unique benefit of their political futures.  Looking at the second-order benefits is extremely relevant - the money was for something - increased health care for the poor, which are a Democrat-leaning group.  It couldn't be used for anything those states wanted.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I just dont understand why anyone should care so much about the costs that it would make them want to oppose this bill. The value of effeciency, and freedom were equally considered with eqaulity, safety, and Liberty. All five of these values competed againts each other through out the procces, and some of them were partially compermised while others remained more dominant through out the discussion. Thus many values were considered when it came to shaping this bill, and thus it would be ridiculous to suggest that the value of effiency should be the one that determines wether or not this bill was a good thing. After all why should we let only one value dictate a laws future if the political construct was built on the foundations of many values?

I'll give an example as to why effiency should sometimes take a back seat. Just look at how our country sometimes spends excessive amounts on our military, and oversea bases. Obviously many of these bases might never be used for their intended purpose, and despite all of this we continue to spend on these bases because our society has decided that the value of safety is worth more than saving a few bucks.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Which Democrat interest group benefited from the Cornhusker kickback?

The DSCC, natch!

[Beet]

Re: "Cornhusker" kickback:

The fact that we are debating something that is not even law as if it were law is a perfect reflection of the twilight zone that Republicans tend to enter in when they start talking about the health care plan that they proposed in 1993. When this happens, Democrats feel like Winston in 1984: They know the truth, but something else is being forced into their minds with such determination and conviction and they know it is useless to resist this mental rape.

[Badger]

This analysis was completed a week before the vote but suppressed by the Obama administration until late last week.  Gee.  I wonder why.

This turns out to be wrong, by the way.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023543.php

Well, not completely wrong. The claims of "burying" or "delaying" the report until after the HCR vote are utterly bogus, yes. But the Wash Monthly article seems to indicate the underlying conclusions and cost estimations of the report appear to have been accurately reported.

[Vepres]

So we're spending 1% more to cover 34 million more people? Sounds good to me.

Only 11 million didn't have access to care. The others were eligible for something before the over haul.

The real budget crisis will not be in the federal budget, but in the state budgets. Medicaid will double in size, and it already makes up a significant portion of state budgets. Add that to all the other federally mandated peograms, and you are going to have real problems.