CBO: Public option could save $68 billion by 2020

[babsbunny]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/cbo_public_option_could_save_6.html


When people think of deficit reduction, they tend to think about spending cuts and tax increases. They don't think as much about saving money by putting more effective policies into place. But as the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of a new public option proposal from Pete Stark suggests, maybe they should.

Stark wants to add a public option to the exchanges that would start by paying doctors the rates Medicare pays plus 5 percent, and then grow with the cost of physicians' services. According to the CBO, this plan's premiums "would be 5 percent to 7 percent lower, on average, than the premiums of private plans offered in the exchanges." But that's not all!

[Beetwasher]

1. Nice! Push It!!

[T Wolf]

2. Anyone with more than a two-digit IQ (who is honest) KNOWS that single-payer, or, in lieu,

a public option, would save money - enormous amounts of money.

Facts which prove that will not change the perception, however. You are fighting a faith-based philosophy that medical care should only go to those worthwhile (i.e., rich enough to afford it).

The fight for healthCARE reform has always been about the Benjamins. And until someone (hello WH) is courageous enough to really push for a non-profit-based, single-payer system, not a damn thing will change (for the better).

I fear that Obama and the Democrats threw away the best chance in my lifetime (past and future) to accomplish this. Whether they did out of fear, cowardice, or an actual belief in the present system makes no god damned difference.

We will all continue to enrich the insurance corps while we and our fellow citizens suffer and die from the greed of those who block progress.

[truedelphi]

9. They didn't scrap SIngle Payer Universal Health care because they didn't believe in it.

They scrapped it because it is inconvenient for Democrats In the Bigger Offices to turn their backs on their real supporters, the Big Corporations.

We know Obama believed in Single Payer Universal HC.

After all, when he ran for the US Senate in 2004, he went around addressing wildly applauding crowds by saying "We know the best and most logical method of reforming the Health care System is Single Payer Universal HC." <Long pause, while crowd waits to see what he will say next.>

"But we are not gonna get Single Payer Universal HC until we have a Democratic Senate, A Democratic House and a Democrat in the White House."

Huge Bursts of Applause from wildly excited crowd.

And now that we have the Senate, the House and the Presidency, we are only left with that memory, of the good ol days, when Obama really was one with the people on issues.

[DailyGrind51]

12. Remember this one from Brent Budowsky?

Does Obama have a secret deal with insurance companies?
By Brent Budowsky - 09/30/09 09:54 AM ET

Progressives throughout the nation should rally in full force in favor of the public option, and progressives in Congress should say they will not support a bill without it. The public option still lives because it would save $50 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with a president and Congress that claim they want to save money. The public option still lives because it is the only check and balance against insurance-company abuses.

Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.), the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, which is the only committee of the five that are reporting a health bill whose measure does not include the public option, says he is for the public option while he votes against the public option. But let’s look back at the history. It was in June when Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), another Finance Committee Democrat who says he is for the public option while he votes against the public option, was approached by Sen. Baucus to find an alternative to the public option that both Baucus and Conrad claim they support.


Remember, in June the public option was supported by large numbers of voters (as it is now). Why did Baucus and Conrad seek an alternative to the public option in June when the public option they both claimed to support appeared very strong?

It is time for progressives, consumers, workers, populists and anyone who supports affordable healthcare to ask: Was the fix in from the beginning through a secret deal between the White House and insurance companies to kill the public option?

I don’t know, but I do know that a secret deal with Big Pharma was made in similar fashion.

Sure, the fact of the pharma deal was known, but many details remain secret today. I do know the president has given the weakest support imaginable to the public option and time and time again has announced his willingness to surrender, as I wrote on this site months ago. I do know that to this day the White House is keeping secret the logs of meetings from January through September when deals were made from the banking bailout to the healthcare bill. I strongly suspect the reason involves meetings about deals including pharma and insurers.

Was the fix in against the public option? I don't know, but I do know this: If enough members of the House and Senate refuse to support a bill without a public option, the public option can still prevail.

I know this: A majority of the American people support the public option.

I know this: Over 75 percent of respondents in The Washington Post/ABC poll support a public option for those who cannot get private policies. What would it say about a Democratic Senate that many of us worked hard and for years to win 60 seats if it lacks even the minimal courage to stand with more than 75 percent of the nation, either because it fears the 25 percent or it craves the money the industry doles out to Democrats as well as Republicans?

I know this: The three House committees that reported a healthcare bill ALL included the public option.

I know this: The Senate health committee reported a bill that also included the public option.

I know this: The Congressional Budget Office says the Rockefeller public option proposal would cut the costs of the bill by $50 billion, and anyone who opposes it makes a mockery of their alleged interest in protecting taxpayers and reducing wasteful spending.

I know this: There is no serious analyst of healthcare who believes that insurance co-ops are even a minimal check and balance against insurance abuses, and even the Congressional Budget Office says co-ops will have virtually zero impact lowering the cost of the bill.

I know this: Some of the Democrats who are opponents of the public option, or who pretend to support it within minutes of their voting against it, are huge recipients of campaign money from insurance companies.

I know this: The insurance industry has been proven again and again to have engaged in abuses, and yet the insurance industry is granted an exemption from antitrust laws that should be repealed, and allows them to commit price-fixing, collusion, market allocation and other wrongs that would be illegal in virtually every industry under antitrust laws.

I know this: Private insurers don't give a rat's behind about the poor, the jobless, the hungry, the hurting and will charge them high premiums they cannot afford, so a Congress that does not include a public option will create huge subsidies not for the poor, but for insurers who charge outrageous premiums the poor cannot afford.

And I know this: The president, who read a book about Franklin Roosevelt's first hundred days, has not even begun to wage a true fight for the most important provision of a healthcare bill, and has hinted, winked, nodded again and again that he would gladly surrender on this vital issue, which raises the legitimate question: Is there a secret deal with insurers for a formal surrender that leaves a bill with gigantic windfall profits for insurers subsidized with taxpayer money to be ratified by a Democratic president and Democratic Congress?

I don't know whether there is such a deal, but I do know that this question should now be asked, and above all, I do know this:

A majority of the American people, a majority of the Senate, a majority of the House and the president, with great eloquence, all support the public option. If progressives wage the fight that should be fought, the public option should, can and will be won.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/60879-does-obama-have-a-secret-deal-with-insurance-companies
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/60879-does-obama-have-a-secret-deal-with-insurance-companies

[truedelphi]

13. Wow. What an entry about public option!.

I am going to embolden your comment, DailyGrind51 so I can enter it in my journal and refer to it at will:


Remember this one from Brent Budowsky?
Posted by DailyGrind51



Does Obama have a secret deal with insurance companies?
By Brent Budowsky - 09/30/09 09:54 AM ET

Progressives throughout the nation should rally in full force in favor of the public option, and progressives in Congress should say they will not support a bill without it. The public option still lives because it would save $50 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with a president and Congress that claim they want to save money. The public option still lives because it is the only check and balance against insurance-company abuses.

Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.), the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, which is the only committee of the five that are reporting a health bill whose measure does not include the public option, says he is for the public option while he votes against the public option. But let’s look back at the history. It was in June when Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), another Finance Committee Democrat who says he is for the public option while he votes against the public option, was approached by Sen. Baucus to find an alternative to the public option that both Baucus and Conrad claim they support.


Remember, in June the public option was supported by large numbers of voters (as it is now). Why did Baucus and Conrad seek an alternative to the public option in June when the public option they both claimed to support appeared very strong?

It is time for progressives, consumers, workers, populists and anyone who supports affordable healthcare to ask: Was the fix in from the beginning through a secret deal between the White House and insurance companies to kill the public option?

I don’t know, but I do know that a secret deal with Big Pharma was made in similar fashion.

Sure, the fact of the pharma deal was known, but many details remain secret today. I do know the president has given the weakest support imaginable to the public option and time and time again has announced his willingness to surrender, as I wrote on this site months ago. I do know that to this day the White House is keeping secret the logs of meetings from January through September when deals were made from the banking bailout to the healthcare bill. I strongly suspect the reason involves meetings about deals including pharma and insurers.

Was the fix in against the public option? I don't know, but I do know this: If enough members of the House and Senate refuse to support a bill without a public option, the public option can still prevail.

I know this: A majority of the American people support the public option.

I know this: Over 75 percent of respondents in The Washington Post/ABC poll support a public option for those who cannot get private policies. What would it say about a Democratic Senate that many of us worked hard and for years to win 60 seats if it lacks even the minimal courage to stand with more than 75 percent of the nation, either because it fears the 25 percent or it craves the money the industry doles out to Democrats as well as Republicans?

I know this: The three House committees that reported a healthcare bill ALL included the public option.

I know this: The Senate health committee reported a bill that also included the public option.

I know this: The Congressional Budget Office says the Rockefeller public option proposal would cut the costs of the bill by $50 billion, and anyone who opposes it makes a mockery of their alleged interest in protecting taxpayers and reducing wasteful spending.

I know this: There is no serious analyst of healthcare who believes that insurance co-ops are even a minimal check and balance against insurance abuses, and even the Congressional Budget Office says co-ops will have virtually zero impact lowering the cost of the bill.

I know this: Some of the Democrats who are opponents of the public option, or who pretend to support it within minutes of their voting against it, are huge recipients of campaign money from insurance companies.

I know this: The insurance industry has been proven again and again to have engaged in abuses, and yet the insurance industry is granted an exemption from antitrust laws that should be repealed, and allows them to commit price-fixing, collusion, market allocation and other wrongs that would be illegal in virtually every industry under antitrust laws.

I know this: Private insurers don't give a rat's behind about the poor, the jobless, the hungry, the hurting and will charge them high premiums they cannot afford, so a Congress that does not include a public option will create huge subsidies not for the poor, but for insurers who charge outrageous premiums the poor cannot afford.

And I know this: The president, who read a book about Franklin Roosevelt's first hundred days, has not even begun to wage a true fight for the most important provision of a healthcare bill, and has hinted, winked, nodded again and again that he would gladly surrender on this vital issue, which raises the legitimate question: Is there a secret deal with insurers for a formal surrender that leaves a bill with gigantic windfall profits for insurers subsidized with taxpayer money to be ratified by a Democratic president and Democratic Congress?

I don't know whether there is such a deal, but I do know that this question should now be asked, and above all, I do know this:

A majority of the American people, a majority of the Senate, a majority of the House and the president, with great eloquence, all support the public option. If progressives wage the fight that should be fought, the public option should, can and will be won.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/60879-...
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/60879-...

[pleah]

3. Great! Now pass the Public Option! n/t

[JonLP24]

4. K&R

:kick:

[Oregone]

5. Single Payer may save as much as $400 billion a year

Just saying.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Still waiting for that CBO score :( n/t

[Orsino]

6. Keep waving this in the faces of the phony deficit hawks.

Don't stop.

[grillo7]

10. This is exactly right...

Many of these people claim they aren't opposed to something like a public option, only increasing debt. Bringing this issue up will force them to either begrudgingly support it, or be clear hypocrites.

[Scuba]

11. Nailed it.

[fascisthunter]

7. yeah but helping people and saving tax money.... pffft