Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 [View all]csziggy
(34,136 posts)65. That bill never made it out of committee so the CBO never scored it
But similar bills were scored by the CBO:
The CBO is required to score bills that are reported out of committee in either chamber, so such a vote would have required it to score H.R. 676. But because Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders thought a single-payer vote would hurt the chances of passing the main health reform bill, they rebuffed Weiner and the floor vote didnt come, H.R. 676 never made it out of committee, and thus the CBO was not required to score it. It sometimes provides estimates for bills that have not made it out of committee, but in this case, it did not.
But that doesnt mean there arent data on the budgetary impact of greatly expanding publicly-provided health care. In 2007 and 2009, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced the AmeriCare Health Care Act, which would automatically enroll Americans in a Medicare-like public plan at birth and allow employers to choose between covering their employees or paying into the public plan to cover them.
The plan would be financed through these employee contributions as well as premiums and state contributions equal to their previous spending on Medicaid and S-CHIP, which would be rolled into the public plan. Unlike H.R. 676, the AmeriCare bill doesnt force providers to go nonprofit, and, importantly, it maintains a role for private insurers. People are free to opt out of the public plan and keep their employer-based health plan if they wish. This means its not a single-payer plan, but its the closest thing for which we have reliable numbers.
Those numbers come courtesy of the Commonwealth Fund, which commissioned the Lewin Group to take a look at AmeriCare and a few other health-care proposals in 2009. The resulting study predicts that, because of a public plans lower provider reimbursement rates and administrative costs, as well as its ability to negotiate down drug prices, enacting the bill would have resulted in $58.1 billion less annual health spending in 2010. It would increase the federal deficit by $188.5 billion a year, and employers would pay $61.5 billion more annually, but state and local governments would save $83.6 billion, and households a whopping $224.5 billion.
http://pnhpcalifornia.org/2011/07/research-desk-how-much-would-single-payer-cost/
But that doesnt mean there arent data on the budgetary impact of greatly expanding publicly-provided health care. In 2007 and 2009, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced the AmeriCare Health Care Act, which would automatically enroll Americans in a Medicare-like public plan at birth and allow employers to choose between covering their employees or paying into the public plan to cover them.
The plan would be financed through these employee contributions as well as premiums and state contributions equal to their previous spending on Medicaid and S-CHIP, which would be rolled into the public plan. Unlike H.R. 676, the AmeriCare bill doesnt force providers to go nonprofit, and, importantly, it maintains a role for private insurers. People are free to opt out of the public plan and keep their employer-based health plan if they wish. This means its not a single-payer plan, but its the closest thing for which we have reliable numbers.
Those numbers come courtesy of the Commonwealth Fund, which commissioned the Lewin Group to take a look at AmeriCare and a few other health-care proposals in 2009. The resulting study predicts that, because of a public plans lower provider reimbursement rates and administrative costs, as well as its ability to negotiate down drug prices, enacting the bill would have resulted in $58.1 billion less annual health spending in 2010. It would increase the federal deficit by $188.5 billion a year, and employers would pay $61.5 billion more annually, but state and local governments would save $83.6 billion, and households a whopping $224.5 billion.
http://pnhpcalifornia.org/2011/07/research-desk-how-much-would-single-payer-cost/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 [View all]
kpete
Mar 2012
OP
Then, Justice Scalia, why did you take the case? Do you want to rule in ignorance?
HubertHeaver
Mar 2012
#1
We do now know Scalia won't take responsibility to read the case...s does his Jr.; Clarence Thomas.
FarPoint
Mar 2012
#45
The most important case in recent history?? He could at least skim through it.
nanabugg
Mar 2012
#86
I read legislation for a living and there is no way you read 90 percent of the ACA
onenote
Mar 2012
#132
If the point was that you made up a totally unbelievable load about reading the ACA in an hour
onenote
Mar 2012
#139
You might be able to look at that many pages in a few hours, but comprehend it? Not a chance
onenote
Apr 2012
#156
Not grandstanding. Making a point. The same as Breyer, who asked pretty much the same thing
onenote
Apr 2012
#164
I read it. It's important legislation, and it is your responsibility to be informed
Politicub
Mar 2012
#141
The reason I ask is that Hill staffers I know who had to review it when it was under consideration
onenote
Mar 2012
#145
the pdf referred to here has about 5 words/line and would take little time to read a page
wordpix
Apr 2012
#154
IMO, it's kind of absurd that a piece of legislation is 2700 pages to begin with.
OneTenthofOnePercent
Mar 2012
#7
Well If You Are Going To Decide The Fate Of Healthcare For 300+ Million Americans......
global1
Mar 2012
#8
He's like every other Republican in this country ... waits for Fox news to tell him what it says.
JoePhilly
Mar 2012
#14
I agree with you about the Justices reading it. Some of the lawyers might have read it all.
Jim Lane
Mar 2012
#79
"Why waste all that time reading when I've already made up my mind how I will vote?"
spooky3
Mar 2012
#35
No, we pay you for your "Good looks, charm and personality" you dumb ass. Of course we want you
teddy51
Mar 2012
#40
At least the Democrats in the Senate tried to block his nomination (yes, that's BITTER sarcasm)
abq e streeter
Mar 2012
#57
for saying reading the law would be cruel and unusual punishment which is what he said. Dont
robinlynne
Mar 2012
#123
That is not the point. Scalia made a joke calling it cruel and unusual punishment. Do you think
robinlynne
Mar 2012
#125
I didnt know Breyer said that. Yes I have watched many many hours of the Supreme Court.
robinlynne
Mar 2012
#128
I guess this will be 'decision by guess,' and F the majority of Americas, who gives a
RKP5637
Mar 2012
#73
So the court is going to decide on something they refuse to completely understand?
liberal N proud
Mar 2012
#75
fat tony has plenty of time to go to Repug fundraisers, though, and stuff his face
wordpix
Apr 2012
#155
They don't need to read the whole thing. They need to read the legal arguments.
onenote
Mar 2012
#103
Both sides agreed that the court didn't have to read the entire law to decide the case.
onenote
Mar 2012
#110
Yes, I do expect them to read it. How can they strike it down if they do not read it?
McCamy Taylor
Mar 2012
#119