rssBaucus: Health Care Bill Will Cost Less Than $1 Trillion
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 1:22 pm
- 3 Comments
Just out of the office of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) comes news that the cost of the health reform bill the Senate Finance Committee chairman is working on has fallen below $1 trillion. From Baucus’ statement:
We have options the Congressional Budget Office tells us would cost under $1 trillion and are fully paid for. Based on these developments, I’m even more confident in our ability to move forward. And as I’ve said before, we will not put out a mark until we are sure we have it right.
$1 trillion is no chump change, but it’s quite an improvement over the $1.6 trillion the bill was estimated to cost just a few weeks ago.
Baucus and the Finance Committee are expected to unveil their proposal following the Fourth of July break.
3 Comments
Comment posted June 27, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
I think, given the fact that health insurance premiums have doubled over the last decade at an unsustainable rate three times faster than wages, the status more than 97% of all Massachusetts residents,the highest in the U.S., are now covered could be touted as success model, which features 'mandating insurance' and an option to purchase coverage through the “Connector,” a program in which private insurers are required to offer coverage to those who can't get other insurance, regardless of age or health status.
But the Massachusetts model has a problem with costs control, because it relies exclusively on private insurers as Massachusetts' insurers implemented average premium increases of 8% to 12% only in 2008. And it highlights the necessity of having a publicly financed insurance option
To be sure, in case the president's proposal with respect to the strong public option, medical IT, increased efforts in prevention, and a broader array of cost-saving plans and beyond adds to the Massachusetts Plan with the provision of employer mandate and an individual mandate, the cost containment does not matter at all. And most importantly, the promising stem cell research is making its way.
Human health, in a sense, may precede all the other basic human rights as everything means nothing for someone without it. As far as my common sense goes, the major role of government will be to protect basic rights of the public from any threat. That is why all of the industrialized countries have public policy in place, I guess.
Under this premise, the strong public option needs to be cited as a part of 'PROTECTION' like anti-trust law rather than intervention.
The intention to introduce the public choice would be to protect the uninsured, economy and keep the medical industry honest, not be to drive it out.
Hopefully, the health industry can provide reasonable,fair, competitive prices and quality service via tireless innovations like most of the EUROPE, instead of concerning about its monopoly prices, otherwise the forthcoming health start-ups will likely fill the blanks with competitive terms over time.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
