Some Basic Info on CBO Scoring of Healthcare Bills
Via ThinkProgress, both the Baucus Bill and the plan put forward by Pelosi will enroll some more people but most will not be in the Public Option and it will not cover everyone:
The public option would attract about 6 million enrollees by 2019 and charge premiums that are “somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.” This is because the public option would “engage in less management of utilization” by its enrollees and “attract a less healthy pool of enrollees,” the office concludes. Moreover, since the House bill expands Medicaid up to 150% of the federal poverty line, it’s possible that the enrollees that would have enrolled in the public option went into Medicaid instead.
Below is a comparison of the relevant provisions in the House and Senate Finance Committee legislation:
CBO Score Of House Bill CBO Score Of Baucus Bill Costs Reduce deficits: $104B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $605B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $425B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $25B/10yrs
Reduce deficits: $81B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $461B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $345B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $23B/10yrs
Insured Uninsured reduced by: 36M
Uninsured in 2019: 18M
In Exchanges: 30M | Public Plan: 6M
In Medicaid: 15M
Uninsured reduced by: 29M
Uninsured in 2019: 25M
In Exchanges: 23M
In Medicaid: 14M
Revenue Mandate penalty: $33B/10yrs
Pay-Play penalty: $135B/10yrs
New taxes: $572B/10yrs
Mandate penalty: $4B/10yrs
Free rider penalty: $23B/10yrs
New taxes: $196B/10yrs
Total savings: 426B/10yrs
Medicare Advantage: $170B/10yrs
Total savings: 404B/10yrs
Medicare Advantage: $117B/10yrs
The difference is not just everyone being covered but HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS saved every year:
The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental,
vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
There are too many reasons why so many Doctors and Nurses support single payer. Some frequently asked questions concerning Single Payer:
- Since we could finance a fairly good system, like the Norwegian, Danish or Swedish system, with the public money we are already spending (60% of health costs), why do we need to raise the additional 40% (from employers and individuals)?
- What is PNHP’s response to libertarian proposals for health savings accounts and deregulated insurance plans?
- Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been in the news lately for poor care and treatment of returning soldiers from Iraq. Won’t national health insurance have similar problems?
- How much could the states save on administrative waste by adopting a statewide single-payer program?
- Universal healthcare is okay for a small country or organization like Switzerland, Canada, or the Veterans Administration, but it wouldn’t work when scaled up to meet the needs of a large country like the US.
- What about the claim (in videos circulating on the internet) that a patient in Canada would have died of a brain tumor if he hadn’t come to the U.S. for an MRI?