AP sources: Senate health overhaul costs top $1.6T

[Thrill]

WASHINGTON – The latest cost estimates for health care legislation in Congress are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years, two Senate sources said Tuesday as concerns mounted over the price tag for the sweeping overhaul. Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

On Monday, the budget office said the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee version would cost $1 trillion over ten years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsured.

The staffers who disclosed the latest estimates spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the legislation.

A third staffer, a Finance Committee Democratic aide who also spoke on condition of anonymity, indicated committee members are working to lower the cost to less than $1 trillion over 10 years, a level preferred by the Obama administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul

[timeforpeace]

1. To cover only 1/3 of the uninsured?

Why not just say it will be 3 times that and cover them all? Weird.

[slipslidingaway]

2. Preliminary estimates...

Full text and letter at link...

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/06/16/cbo-score-everyone-covered-except-37-million/

"...Since the Affordable Health Choices Act and the CBO analysis of it are works in progress, the estimates of the net numbers who will gain insurance coverage and the net cost to the government are only preliminary and will likely change with refinements in the legislation and the analysis. What will not change are the fundamental implications of financing health care through government subsidized private health plans plus public programs.

The primary reform goals that most of us support include providing health insurance for everyone that is effective in preventing financial hardship, and controlling the rate of increase in our health care costs. What does the CBO response tell us about the potential of this legislation to meet these two goals?

Regarding the impact on our national health expenditures (NHE), the analysis tells us almost nothing. As with most reports of this nature, they looked primarily at government spending rather than total health care spending. Individuals, employers and the government are all concerned about health care costs. Tax and budget policies that satisfy fiscally conservative legislators by effectively capping government spending while shifting cost increases to individuals and employers do not help us, as a nation, to meet the challenges of run-away health care costs that are harming so many of us. Looking at government spending while ignoring private spending is of little value to us when we are trying to figure out how we are going to pay for health care.

CBO needs to provide us with an estimate of changes in our NHE since we are all paying that. Providing us, in addition, with estimates of government spending can be helpful in establishing tax policies that would help bring equity to health care financing. But let’s have transparency on our full health care spending, public and private.

Regarding the impact on the numbers who will become insured, analyses such as this can provide a ballpark figure. The fact that the policies outlined in the current draft of the legislation would leave 37 million people without coverage likely has Senate HELP Committee members scurrying to patch the holes in the legislation and to look for other refinements that would expand coverage to more individuals..."

[Diamonique]

3. I. Don't. Care.

Congress seems to be able to find all kinds of money when it's going to fund war(s). Support the troops! Fight for our freedom! Blah blah blah!

But when it's time to ante up for something that's going to help the people of this country, and eventually help our economy, they're worried about how much it costs.

If we weren't spending so much money killing brown people around the world, maybe we'd be better able to get our house in order here.

I don't care how much it costs. We know it's going to have a huge price tag. Be we also know that we need it. Now!

[quantass]

4. It's funny that ANYTHING to help the less fortunate it always gets opposition,,,

but anything that involves war or helping the rich it always passes without question even if it puts the nation in serious debt and potential bankruptcy.

[quantass]

5. Like everyone here says...Democrats should grow balls to hammer this thing through...

ultimately it will save the nation as a whole so it doesnt matter about potential cost.