Senate Already Passed A Budget That Can Pay For A Public Option

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:03


The Congressional Budget Office has put an estimated price tag on the health care reform bill from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). The plan includes a public option, and will cost just over $600 billion over ten years:

Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on employers who do not offer coverage to their workers.

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.

By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.

The most noteworthy part of this is that a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion is slightly less than the $634 billion President Obama set aside for health care spending in the budget:

President Barack Obama's first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

The Senate has already passed the budget with the health care spending intact:

The Senate easily passed a $3.55 trillion federal budget late Thursday night to kick off a two-week recess, giving President Obama most of what he wanted in his first spending plan in office.

Senators voted 55-43 for a plan that was championed by the White House and congressional Democrats as key to reviving the nation's economy and panned by Republicans as too expensive to adopt.(...)

The Senate budget closely parallels the proposal put forth by Obama, trimming it only by $12 billion in non-defense discretionary spending

Add it all up, and the Senate has already passed a budget that can pay for the public option. While a few details need to be clarified, the overall structure is now in place.

At this point, the only way that a public plan does not pass into law is if right-wing Democratic ideologues like Joe Lieberman overwhelm The Progressive Bloc(k). You can make sure that doesn't happen by using the Citizen Whip Count tool at FireDogLake.

Chris Bowers :: Senate Already Passed A Budget That Can Pay For A Public Option

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Except (0.00 / 0)
that's only the pricetag if you don't include Medicaid expansions which will be in the bill in which case it's 1 billion a year. See Jon Cohn's blog.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Whoops (0.00 / 0)
not a year. 1 - 1.3 billion over a decade.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Either way it's a drop in the bucket compared to $600-$1000B (0.00 / 0)
I'm wondering, though, if $600 was the intended price tag all along, and that $1T figure (and as high as $3T from some accounts) was just a classic opening negotiating tactic.

Hardly 11D chess, but if it works, I won't know it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
I meant I won't "knock" it, not "know" it (0.00 / 0)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Whoops again (0.00 / 0)
clearly I shouldn't type late at night.

1- 1.3 TRILLION over a decade.

There.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
So, 2 of 3 proposals have the public plan... (0.00 / 0)
And the public plan one is cheapest at the moment...

We'll see what the house plan will be scored at...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


That was my first thought too (4.00 / 2)
It seems like the O-team did a good job creating the facts on the ground. The money is already set aside. Between Franken to be seated, the supposed turnaround of AMA in support of public option, and this...all in all pretty good week. Screw Liberman.  

Why are we using the 10 year price tag for this bill? (4.00 / 3)
It's 60 Billion a year.   Less than half of what we are spending in Iraq.  Less than 10% of what we will spend on defense.

The Trillion dollar frame is just silly, and it is amazing that the Democrats are using the 10 year number.


damn right (0.00 / 0)
another thing that drives me nuts

[ Parent ]
3% uninsured is 9 million. (0.00 / 0)
...would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.

By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.

So both plans leave millions uninsured. I guess it's too much to expect every reporter to understand basic math skills and use them in their writing. < / sigh>

Jeff Wegerson


About medicare reimbursement (0.00 / 0)

I personally don't think that there should be a great pressure to increase reimbursement rates. I think that Internists are doing just fine with their median salaries around $150,000 - I have seen also figures around $180,000. The problem I think is that Internists look at specialists making $300-500,000 and say they should make that amount also. It is all relative and some professionals do not want to feel that they are being left off the gravy train. I understand that specialists incur additional expenses as part of their practice but it in no way can justify the huge premium they are paid over Internists.

However, the trick is not to increase the reimbursements for Internists. Instead, it should be about cutting the reimbursements for specialists!! Bear in mind it is all relative. If we cut the reimbursements for specialists so that after expenses they work for no more than Internists, then the Internists will no longer feel "jealous". Medicare would save a lot of money and all the doctors would be happy.


Actually, the internists are looking at (0.00 / 0)
their student loan payments. Talk to doctors, and 9 out of 10 will tell you, "yeah, universal health care would be great, but I've got to make $x hundred thousand because of the $y hundred thousand in debt I racked up during medical school."

If we could nationalize medical education, nationalizing health care would be a lot easier.  


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search