ShareThisThe best thing about Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' health-care bill, the result of months of agonizing deliberations by the so-called "Gang of Six" senators, is that it may actually be affordable.
The measure meets President Obama's demand that health-care reform not add one dime to the deficit. Ten-year projections are notoriously shaky, but the Baucus bill might actually reduce the deficit.
The Congressional Budget Office scored its cost at $774 billion over 10 years, trimming the federal deficit by $49 billion during that period and, according to the deficit hawks at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, generating "significant savings" in the second 10-year period.
The measure would require that everyone have health insurance, fining individuals up to $950 and families up to $3,800 who do not. Businesses with more than 50 employees must offer coverage or pay a fine. Small businesses would get tax credits of up to 50 percent on their contributions to employee coverage.
There is no "public option," an omission sure to rile many House Democrats. Insurers would be required to offer coverage to all who want it without regard to pre-existing conditions. The policies would have to meet certain federal standards and would be available through state-level insurance exchanges. The lack of the public option and the requirement that everyone have coverage should surely make the health-insurance industry happy.
The poor would be covered by expanded Medicaid. Tax credits for individuals and families earning less that 400 percent of the poverty level would cap insurance premiums at 13 percent of income.
The plan would be paid for by fees on health insurers, medical-device manufacturers and drug companies and a 35 percent excise tax on so-called "gold-plated" health-insurance plans, those worth more than $21,000 per family. This would raise $215 billion over 10 years, but has already drawn strong union opposition.
No Republicans, including the three who helped draw it up, have signed on to the Baucus plan, and response from other Democratic senators, the White House and business groups has been tepid. An Obama spokesman called Baucus' bill an "important building block," hardly a full-throated endorsement. But, equally, the measure has not sparked any great outcry of opposition.
The full Finance Committee must still vote on the measure. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid says he hopes to bring the bill to the floor later this month or early next, and the House is looking at a similar timetable for its health-care package.
For all the criticism Baucus has taken for the grindingly slow proceedings of the Gang of Six, of the five such bills in Congress, his may have the best chance of passage. It is, if the CBO is right, affordable.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
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.