Oh come on.

This comes as a surprise??

They knew this well BEFORE the bill got passed.

well, to democrats I'm sure it does.

Dems liberals what is defending BO, prolly is on da welfare and don't buys no insurance. It's gave to 'em. Fo free!!

The fun doesn't start 'til the 'defenders of the faith' show up to tell us just how wrong we are to be skeptical and contemptuous of 'The ONE' and his suckup crew of psychophants ... li'l children playing at 'adult' ... and the scary part is - they vote ...

Report: Health overhaul will INCREASE tab

Health and Human Services experts say plan falls short of controlling costs.

Thurs., April 22, 2010

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. Seniors are more likely to vote than younger people and polls show they are already deeply skeptical of the law.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine coverage for seniors.

The health care law, passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

CBO: Millions could be penalized
A separate Congressional Budget Office analysis, also released Thursday, estimated that 4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any reforms.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans.

In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36726295

So costs are going up....translate to mean premiums are going up...but hey, there is the POSSIBILITY of some savings in 2020....now, I'm sure that everybody that pays premiums can hold out till then.

The bill is virtually VOID of any cost containment controls at all until 2018.

So here is what really hapened.....34 million people got some type of coverage at the expense of those who already had coverage and those that had coverage premiums will go up. And a trillion dollars has been spent.

Revisions will cure all the issues!!!

Too bad there are more of these smart considerate healthy minded humans out there than there are of those like you huh?

Well ... you're back to the 'ad hominem' (just so you understand, that means 'personal') attacks again ... and that's okay - but, since you've decided, by your action, to include yourself in the 'defenders of the faith' camp, please continue to amuse us with your cute little playground tactics ... they're as good a substitute for thought as anything else, right?..

No revisions needed.

They actually have to work out how to implement what is in the bill. They are just now assigning committees to do that. It will work out and if something is not working they can then revise it.

It is a good thing not as good as it should have been with the public option but it is a start.

No revisions needed.

They actually have to work out how to implement what is in the bill. They are just now assigning committees to do that. It will work out and if something is not working they can then revise it.

It is a good thing not as good as it should have been with the public option but it is a start.

My only question is ( and you KNOW that I am not against getting more people covered ) shouldn't some of this stuff have been done BEFORE they passed the bill? Shouldn't they have had a better idea of what would work and what wouldn't?

Anything that increases tax/cost of living is HORRIBLE right now. People are still out of work and losing their homes. Spending money we dont have is also not working out. How about cutting salaries of the big wigs and NO BONUSES

Ideologically working through the working of anything is always good but you do not know if it will work until you do it in the physical sense. It works that way for everything, no exceptions.

I understand that.

However, considering the magnitude of what they were doing, shouldn't they have done a bit more in depth checking of the effects it would have??

Why were there not committees set up to check on stuff BEFORE they passed it?? They were squawking about it for over a year. Surely that's enough time to get, at least, a pretty good grasp of things that would work and some things that would need to be changed.

Why is all of this being done " after the fact "??

Considering these are all guessimations anyway, it is still not
for sure it is going to do this.

I know I am willing to pay more for health insurance if it means everyone can have it but it may not even turn out that I will have to.