rssThe Waiting Room
Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 6:01 pm
- 2 Comments
Here’s a quick wrap-up of today’s health care news.
More reactions to the Baucus bill today. Four key moderate senators — Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and the most key moderate senator, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — penned a statement praising Baucus’ efforts. “We are encouraged by his commitment to work with both Democrats and Republicans in the Finance Committee,” they wrote, “and believe there is a responsibility for both sides of the aisle to work together to develop a bill that will earn strong support from the full Senate.”
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), on the other hand, took a swipe at Baucus, claiming that Baucus could have had a bipartisan bill if he hadn’t rushed the process. “Another couple weeks would have given us an opportunity to have a bipartisan bill that I think would have gotten broad-based support,” he told CNBC this morning.
Baucus may be touting the Congressional Budget Office’s score of his bill, but he can’t be too happy about the CBO’s assessment of the role of co-ops in the legislation. “The proposed co-ops had very little effect on the estimates of total enrollment in the exchanges or federal costs because, as they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments,” the CBO wrote.
For a summary of where the competing health care bills in the House and Senate will go from here, take a look at this post from The New Republic.
–
Check out our Senate Public Option Scoreboard here. You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Aaron Wiener on Twitter
2 Comments
Pingback posted September 17, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
[...] here: The Waiting Room « When all the logical stuff fails, try picking stocks with Intuition Sorry, here’s [...]
Comment posted September 19, 2009 @ 9:23 am
The State Of “Yes We Can”, Minnesota Knows Better !!
1. As regards a make-believe scheme, the source of funding coming from a middle class is utterly against the commitment of Democratic party.
2. No cost-competitive advantage does not clear the grave concern about the unsustainable cost of overall health care program in the long run.
3. Even with some benefit for primary practitioners, the baseless scheme does not come with fundamental payment reform, or a pay for value reimbursement formula. It means that the insurer-friendly scheme is not cleaning up the concerns over a quality issue and $9trillion of deficit over the next decade.
((Here is some of CBO analysis : While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion–60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout)).
4. For Medicare & Medicaid system to survive from the most wasteful structure on earth, enough savings by ways of fundamental changes need to be secured, in return, the savings thereof suffice to meet the goal of well-planned public option.
((Even with far less visits to docs, which average a half or a third of them in any other free states, Americans pay roughly twice as much per person right now)).
5. For the record, prior to nation-wide deployment of reform, The State Of “Yes We Can”, Minnesota influenced by Mayo clinic spends “20 percent” less per patient than the national average and 31 percent less than in the highest cost state. It highlights that no substantial tax raise is needed at least for sure.
((The $583 billion of revenue package, and the astronomical savings of public option aside, “20%” of $923.5bn (the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost per year, as of July) is around $184.7bn per year and 1.847trillion over the next decade, and this patient-centered value alone could be sufficient to meet the goal of public option)).
6. In brief, the long-awaited and most hopeful health care plan is to meet these criterias : Affordability, Quality, and A Check function against runaway premiums thereof.
Clearly enough, due largely to its lower overhead cost, purchasing power and fundamental payment reform, the well-planned public option would be an even better candidate than the fabricated scheme by THE INDUSTRY in these aforementioned regards.
Now is the moment to turn page to contemporary energy and financial upgrades glossed over in 8 years.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
