Denver Post: HHS audit says health overhaul will increase costs

[cinyc]

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

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.