Rep. Anthony Weiner: 'The CBO is performing a cost analysis of Single Payer over the August recess.'

[seafan]

HEADS UP.


NY Congressman Anthony Weiner was just interviewed on the Ed Schultz show in the last 30 minutes.


Weiner said that they (the House of Representatives) has asked the Congressional Budget Office to complete a cost analysis on the Single Payer (Medicare For All) plan for health care. He said that the analysis will take place during August.


He said that the vote on Single Payer HR 676 will be much more effective when they have this analysis in hand, to be able to compare it with the other plans being discussed.



We need to engage NOW. Call, write, visit our congresspeople in their districts for the next 5 weeks. Write letters to the editor in support of Single Payer (Medicare For All). Barrage the media.

This is our fight.

[Oregone]

1. Itd be nice if they could score a streamlined plan too (more like Canadian plans)

I would imagine universal dental, vision, etc, in HR 676 will make it be a bit more bloated in costs than what you see up north. Nonetheless, this is a positive step.

[tritsofme]

2. If it doesn't turn out the way the whiners like

I'm sure there will be some conspiracy behind it...

[paulk]

32. those who support single payer are "whiners"?

[John Q. Citizen]

42. i think the truth will out. If it scores well are you backing it? Or it ideology paramount to you.

[Amos Moses]

51. He'd rather waste his money on a govt. insurance scam.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Maybe he's gone out for awhile. I can wait for his answer, a little longer.

[Amos Moses]

82. He was probably just here on behalf of Freedom Works.

I wonder where he went? :shrug:

[BlueIdaho]

3. Its dead Jim... nt.

[KittyWampus]

5. You are a perfect example of the defeatists who pollute discourse here on DU. You are almost as bad

as the rightwing trolls.

[t0dd]

35. Yeah, except BlueIdaho is as worthless as rightwing trolls. Pay no attention to it :) nt

[robinlynne]

39. haven't even started the discussion yet!!! aint nothing dead about it.

[KittyWampus]

4. It seems Weiner is doing a bit of heavy lifting for Single Payer. If he's willing to champion it,

how about letting him know you support him and asking him what we can do to help?

[Barack_America]

10. Money bomb?

A la Tinklenberg?

That got the media's attention.

Money bombs are sparkly and exciting and just the sort of thing the MSM calls "news".

[dflprincess]

17. That's a damn good idea

it may get the attention of other members of Congress as well.

I was worried how serious the single payer vote Pelosi promised would be as I hadn't heard the CBO would be scoring the bill. This is good news.

[robinlynne]

40. done 2 weeks ago!

[Critters2]

6. I love this man! Good to see a progressive in Congress! nt

[supernova]

7. Yay! Good news!

Thanks for posting seafan.

:-)

[dysfunctional press]

8. most unions and corporations have(or should have) huge funds set aside for employee health coverage-

under a single-payer, shouldn't those funds be absorbed into the system to help foot the bill/get things off the ground?

[druidity33]

49. um, no...

It should go to replace the benefits that have been decimated these past 30 years or so. Maybe fill out the retirement funds of people like my Grandpa (GE worker 45 years, retired in '88) who is receiving one third of the Pension he was supposed to.

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

63. retirement plans and health plans are two separate entities.

the biggest part of the benefits that have been decimated for most american workers are the health benefits - which a single payer plan would be fully replacing anyway.

[druidity33]

80. any links

to support the assertion that "the biggest part of the benefits that have been decimated for most american workers are the health benefits"?

My grandfather is not the only person i know who's retirement plan has been decimated or eliminated. He's got Medicare though, so aside from getting fucked over for Prescription drugs, he's covered for Healthcare.

As for the "two separate entities" bit... why should they be? It's Union funds, if it's not needed for Healthcare, it should go to where it is needed. Why should that be a problem?


:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

83. the money in the union funds have already been paid to the workers to cover healthcare costs.

when i was in the construction trades- when the labor contracts were were made with the contractors- you'd get a rasie, and a certain percentage of it would be "on the check" and a xcertain percentage would be on the benefits- mostly heatlh care, but also pension and vacation.

if the country was to go to a single-payer system, the union would supposedly no longer be administrating/paying for healthcare- so it would seem to be fair to the workers who earned that money for their healthcare, that the portion of the money allocated for healthcare costs be added tothe general pool that would pay for single-payer healthcare.

[druidity33]

88. i don't think that's how it works

There wouldn't be a "paying in" to Single Payer, per se. Unions have different types of "funds", you are right. But what they do with those funds is up to the Union Membership. Because money has been set aside for a purpose, does not mean it can't be redesignated. My wife was a Union President. The huge funds you speak of rarely cover more than a month or two, if contract negotiations have run sour or legal fees mount. Sometimes money is moved into the Strike fund, sometimes it's moved out to cover other expenses. The Health care fund they had was only for Union members whose Healthcare plan DID NOT cover a procedure or illness and they wanted to appeal to the Union for financial help.

What will likely happen is the funds will stay right where they are until they figure out what kind of system we'll get... then there'll be a wait and see approach.

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

89. it's probably different for different unions. i have no idea what kind of union your wife heads.

some construction unions have large amounts of health/welfare monies- and that money doesn't belong to the union- it's earmaked for healtcare costs- it's only administrated by the unions. and my point is that IF we move to a single-payer system(which isn't going to happen) the unions would no longer be administrating the plans, and would have no reason to keep control of the funds that have been earned by the workers specifically to cover those costs.

[Laelth]

9. Good. Last I heard the CBO was NOT doing a cost analysis on single payer.

This is an encouraging change in policy by the CBO.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Parker CA]

12. This is a great step, and may be a complete shock to many when the results show the benefits.

I only hope the CBO is fair in their assessment of this option and that they don't distort the numbers to make it appear less reasonable and cost effective.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. Like any other projection, the outcome will depend on the assumptions they make

going in. GIGO--It's possible to get whatever result you want by jiggering the input.

If they go in with fair and realistic assumptions, SP will win.

[MrMickeysMom]

70. Question for you on assumptions-

Would single payer assumptions include extrapolating the number of people who would be provided services and connect them with current eligible services under Medicare?

I may be thinking too simply here. I'm sure if you expanded Medicare services over "everyone", you automatically introduce a huge change in demographics who receive services across the entire continuum of health care.

:shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

72. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking--

and anyway, I most likely don't have the answer. However, a major factor in SP is that if everyone is included, then it will be cheaper per capita than it is now, not just because it eliminates the profits, administrative costs, etc. of the insurance companies, but because the pool includes a lot of people who are young, healthy, and low in the demands they put on the system. Our overall per capita expenditures for health care right now are roughly $7k per person. Most of the developed world spends something less than $4k per capita for what appears to be better, and better-distributed, health care (i.e. everyone is covered, nobody dying because they can't afford treatment). Based simply on those numbers, it is hard to see how universal health care couldn't be set up to cost us less. On the other hand, if we do nothing to limit utilization and fees, then the whole thing could escalate out of control. But keep in mind that the insurance companies already have price controls in place; they limit payments to providers, limit which drugs and services they will pay for, etc. Many of them, in my field anyway (outpatient mental health), are already trying to force independent providers into contracts that pay less than Medicare. Most of my health care clients do not pay my full rate. Either their insurance companies pay a reduced rate, or if they are uninsured and in financial need, we ask them to sign a financial hardship statement and they pay a reduced rate.

[MrMickeysMom]

84. Actually, Jackpine, you answered my question...

... I just didn't state the question clearly. I'm wondering if by adding the numbers into the Medicare model, an extrapolation of how much it would cost could be realized. This is something I imagined the CBO is capable of doing when they "score" these bills.

You described health care rationing a la some corporate bureaucrat. It happens all over the continuum of the health care delivery model in a private run insurance model. Only, it's due to the payer deciding they're only going to pay for "certain drugs" or services they'll pay for.

I'm so tired of the rhetoric describing this very same thing being the case, once SP is allowed in the door.

[ljm2002]

11. That is good news...

...I am still holding out hope that amid all of this disarray and manufactured, misinformed outrage, Congress will pull out the single payer option, dust it off, and vote for and enact it! That would be the poetic-justice finish to it all...

[heppcatt]

13. We all know the CBO report will score better then any other plan, it still wont matter though

The right wingers may even use the good score for single payer as an excuse to show how bad the current House plan did score.

[abumbyanyothername]

14. My letter to NY9's Representative:

Even though you are not my representative in Congress, I want to write and express my absolute support for your strong campaign in favor of HR676. This bill is the health plan that will do the most to fix our national health care crisis. I called Chairman Waxman (my representative) on the day your amendment came before the committee and urged his staffer to communicate my complete support for HR676. Shortly after that I read that Waxman was saying that Pelosi would allow an up or down vote on HR676 in the house.

Today, I read that you have convinced the CBO to score HR676 and again I applaud your efforts.

If there is anything that I can do, as a constituent of a different district, to help you advance these progressive policies please do not hesitate to ask.

[seafan]

15. Here's a good attempt at cost analysis for Single Payer:

Dave Lindorff performed his own cost analysis of Single Payer a few days ago. It looks pretty accurate, and easy to digest:

Let’s for a moment consider what could have happened (and what could still happen if the American people would descend on Washington with pitchforks and firebrands in hand to demand it!).

Medicare, which is wildly popular among seniors and the disabled according to every poll I’ve seen, currently covers 45 million of the highest-cost segment of this country’s 300 million people--its elderly and its permanently disabled. It does this at a cost of $484 billion.

Now that’s a heck of a lot of money--about 13% of the federal budget--but it’s money well spent. We’re talking about our parents and grandparents here, after all, and because they’re all covered by a government single-payer plan that pays virtually all of their doctors’ and hospital bills, we don’t have to pay those bills for them out of our own pockets. Okay, there are problems--the drug industry managed during the Bush/Cheney dark ages to get a prescription drug law passed that bars Medicare from negotiating group discounts for drugs, and that has added enormous rip-off costs to the program, but that’s just another example of corporate scamming of the system that needs to be fixed. And I know that Medicare is not as good as it should be--leaving out important tests, and requiring people to buy supplemental insurance. But it's still better than all but the most expensive private insurance plans.

The important point that needs to be made is that according to Medicare analysts, 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries account for fully two thirds of the total annual cost of Medicare.

What that tells you is that the cost of treating that 10% of the elderly is $320 billion, while the healthier 90% of the elderly--roughly 40 billion people--only cost $160 billion a year to care for.

Now, given that the rest of the population under 65--about 255 million people--need on average far less care than the 90% of seniors who are in that lower-cost group, extending care to them all would clearly cost less than $1 trillion. Add in the cost of the 10% of high-cost elderly, and you’ve got a total bill of $1.34 trillion to care for everyone in America.

That’s a big number, but now you need to subtract out the total cost of Medicaid--the crappy program that, primarily funded by the states through income and sales taxes, pays for the crappy care of the poor. That would be about $400 billion in 2009. So now we’re down to $944 billion to care for all Americans. But from that we need to subtract the cost of Veterans health care--another successful single-payer program that already cares for veterans (or at least some of them it’s grossly underfunded). If we had a single-payer system for all, we could just fold the Veterans Hospital system into the national program. That would mean eliminating another $100 billion that would be saved (because remember, we calculated that original expanded Medicare budget for covering all 300 million of us). So now we’re down to an annual budget of $844 billion for a single-payer program to cover all Americans. Finally there is uncompensated care provided by hospitals to those 47 million Americans who have no health insurance but who don’t qualify for Medicaid. This care, such as it is, is funded in two ways--one by state and county revenues, which come out of state income and sales taxes and also out of local property taxes, and the other is in the form of higher hospital charges and insurance premiums and Medicare costs for the rest of us. Uncompensated care is estimated to cost about $200 billion, all of which would be eliminated if we had a single-payer plan for all.

Okay, so now we’re down to a total net cost for a national single-payer program of just $644 billion. Now remember, we’re talking about expanding a single-payer program that we already have in place, that doctors and hospitals are already familiar with, and that the people who use it already like. And expanding it to cover everybody, instead of just the old and disabled would only cost an added $160 billion, or just 33% more than it costs now to cover only the old and disabled. In these days of trillion-dollar Wall Street bailouts, $160 billion is almost chump change. Heck, it’s less than the cost of a year of war in Afghanistan.

Sure it would still mean a modest tax increase for everyone (to figure out how much, just look at your check stub, find the Medicare tax deduction, and multiply it by 1.33. Then double that to account for the employer share of the added funds). But wait, all you anti-tax nuts! Before you start freaking out at a tax hike and waving those little teabags Fox TV got for you, there are more savings we haven’t considered.

If everyone is covered by Medicare, that means no more out-of-pocket payments by you for doctor bills. No more co-pays. No more deductibles that you have to pay yourself before your health insurance kicks in. No more employee contributions to health insurance premiums, which these days more and more employers are forcing us to pay. That’s a lot of money. For many families, it adds up to thousands of dollars a year. But there’s more. Your employer, if the company is one of the one-in-three that still provides and pays at least something towards health benefits for its workers, would be off the hook. That would free up a lot of money that could go to higher wages and salaries for workers (especially if you have or get yourself a union to make sure that the managers pass the savings on to you and don’t just pocket it or pass it along to shareholders). We’re talking about big savings here. (Incidentally, we're also talking about ending the feudal relationship that has you afraid to talk union, or even to talk back, or speak up, to your employer, for fear of losing not just your job, but your and your family's health insurance. We're talking about liberating you from a major shackle.

So while yes, your taxes would go up a bit to expand Medicare to all, it wouldn’t be by much, and on the plus side, you would be saving an enormous amount of money, making the added tax bite easy to swallow (and remember, your state and local taxes could be reduced).

Recapping:


$484 billion for present-day Medicare (for 45 million old/disabled over age 65)

PLUS

$160 billion to cover everyone else (255 million under age 65)
_______________________________

===$644 billion to cover everyone



Lindorff is correct. This is chump change in the era of bank bailouts and unjustified wars.



This is why The Corporate Structure is fighting us so fiercely. When this CBO analysis on Single Payer is released, it will become obvious to all that anything short of Single Payer is immoral.

[grahamhgreen]

18. MUST READ! Very well said. nt

[KittyWampus]

30. thanks for sharing.

[Oregone]

33. You wouldn't want to get rid of the VA though

The socialized care costs less than public-insured private care. By eliminating the profit and putting doctors on salary for any segment on the population, you can save tons for that segment alone. The only problem is that you would have to justify the reason for socializing that care, and it couldn't be second rate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

58. Plus, an additional savings would be realized down the road.

All the preventative care would knock down costs as illnesses are caught/prevented in their less spendy stages.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Yes but the problem is; this could enhance overall prosperity and individual liberty;

cutting the indentured servant umbilical cord to corporate supremacy.

The American People have become so adapted to stress, uncertainty, corporate abuse and financial ruin, could we handle the shock?:shrug:

[steelmania75]

81. So we save 700 billion dollars with single payer? Use that money to pay down the deficit

[chaska]

16. "This is our fight." Yes, but. Is it just yet another case of bait and switch...?

I mean they've got motivated opposition, but up to this point they've given us on the left not a damn thing worth fighting for. Do they just want us to get them to the finish line and then dump our asses like they always do?

Do I smell a rat?

[stlsaxman]

55. Anthony Weiner is no rat. He's the real thing.

Do all of us a favor and check him out for yourself. When you have, tell all your friends about it.

[grahamhgreen]

19. And now all we need is a supportive speech from the President when the numbers come in...!

[warren pease]

20. A great idea when operating within a normally functional society

However, this is Dumbfuckistan we're talking about. The anti-single payer position has been staked out by violent, manipulated loons drawing on pure emotion, with the emotional manipulators playing all the leading roles.

To foster a functional marketplace of ideas requires two basic prerequisites: an educated population with generally open minds; and a delivery system that will present those ideas without spin, bias or "pundit pap-style" interpretation.

Dumbfuckistan has neither. We have teabag parties and Pox Nous. So all the rational studies on the planet can't stand against the onslaught of anti-single payer manipulated rage. Everything else, including study after study showing the economic and social benefits, is just so much window dressing.

Too bad; we coulda been contenduhs if we had half the brains gawd gave the average sea slug.


sf

[grahamhgreen]

24. 64% are for universal health insurance, 59% of doctors, I don't know where you're talking about.

It's a small, but vocal group of PR firms in concert with a corrupt media that have us all believing we are stupid, IMHO.

In fact, these people are not stupid, they are just misinformed an highly propagandized, that is why it is so critical for the president to use his bully pulpit to push this through.

[warren pease]

25. If they're not stupid, they're doing a damn good impersonation of it.

Really, when's the last time you can remember a matter of serious public policy being decided on its merits rather than on the spin and manipulation that's driving wingnut faux outrage at these so-called town hall meetings?

I'd truly love to be absolutely wrong on this, meaning your interpretation would be correct. I just don't see the evidence to support that position.

But I'd really value hearing of any situations over the past three or so decades -- the years since St. Raygun's initial defunding of public education produced the desired results -- that haven't been swayed by mobs of reactionary idiots screaming USA! USA! USA!

Best,

sf

[grahamhgreen]

34. Well put.

[grahamhgreen]

21. Obama said If we were starting from scratch we should do single payer, well NO COUNTRY started from

scratch to get to single-payer anywhere in the world.

It's a straw man.

[Doctor_J]

22. As if facts will carry any weight with the criminally insane Palinites

weiner's really deluded if he thinks the truth has any bearing on the debate.

[glitch]

36. I like palindrones better. K & R nt

[John Q. Citizen]

44. He's less deluded however than those who are fighting for insurance industry subsidies and trying to

call it "progressive."

At least people are willing to get out and fight for single payer. Nobody seems too excited about a trillion each decade for the insurance industry.

[warren pease]

76. A trillion a decade... chump change...

In 2007, the last year I've seen comprehensive and audited numbers for (see this National Coalition on Health Care study for the basics), the American health care machine was a $2.4 TRILLION business, costing nearly $8,000 per capita -- by far the most expensive system in the world. Here's the intro...:

Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.

In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

In fact, at $4431 per person, the US spends more on its various PUBLIC medical plans -- the ones that apparently don't exist if you listen to the current republicrat hierarchy -- than all but a few countries around the world spend per capita on their own universal access, single payer programs - the ones that we're told we can't have here because they cover everybody, which would violate free market principles all to hell.

A 2008 article in the medical journal "Health Affairs" cites cost figures that are truly insane given traditionally lousy US outcomes:

The public sector accounted for 56.1 percent of health spending within the civilian noninstitutionalized population.

All of this means -- using the industry's own figures of running at between 20 to 35 percent overhead -- that at least $480 billion, and as much as $840 billion was wasted in 2005 on non-medical items. I would bet all those dollar figures are somewhat higher today and will be higher still next year and each year thereafter.

And where does the money go? Good question:

Those costs include truly crazy exec compensation; shareholder return; obsessive paper pushing; outside investments in such things as real estate and hedge funds; motivational junkets to the Bahamas for execs and their girlfriends; salaries and perks for armies of actuaries and claims "adjusters" (whose real job is to "adjust" your claim down to zero via technicalities or, if they can't find any, just make shit up); and so much more...

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with performing the job their corporations are chartered to do: paying medical claims to health care providers for their subscribers. That's their only job, and they manage to fuck it up, refuse to do it and pervert it until it's unrecognizable.

And yet, in this corrupt sewer flowing with thousand dollar bills and ever-escalating equity for shareholders, our alleged representatives are talking about "insurance reform." Not kicking their asses out of the equation like Saint Tommy Douglass did for the incredibly lucky citizens of Canada. Nope. None of that. In fact, "insurance reform" means making these predatory racketeers the centerpiece of a "new, improved, hyper-efficient" way to screw Americans out of their medical dollars.

You don't reform a system by inviting the single most destructive element in the current mess. In doing so, why would anyone expect different results?


sf

[slipslidingaway]

87. Well said :) n/t

[Romulox]

23. Get ready for the CBO to be smeared after it shows that Single Payer makes the most sense. nt

[Wednesdays]

26. K&R

:kick:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

27. thanks to NY's great Senator Weiner. Recommended.

he is doing an awesome job.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. Rep.

[JimWis]

28. Good news. At least it is a step in the right direction. I have been

hoping CBO would score single payer - HR676. Thanks Senator Weiner.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Great news and thanks for posting, if there is a debate and vote...

then we need information.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all

"How Much Would a Single Payer System Cost?

Editors’ Note: With the recent resurgence of interest in controlling health care costs, we thought a review of some of the state and national fiscal studies performed on single payer over the years might be useful..."

[bvar22]

31. Best news I've heard in a while.

K&R

[nightrain]

37. well whaddya know?!?! cool. Good on all of us. I hope they do a policy analysis.

I think that's the more complete analysis.

[Kaleva]

38. k'd and rec'd

[ihavenobias]

41. K & R. n/t

[steelmania75]

43. If it looks good, then the Dems have to bring in a single-payer system

[leftstreet]

45. K&R

[Lasher]

46. Might be a good occasion to start over, leaving Republicans out of it.

They're not going to vote for health insurance reform anyway, so it makes no sense at all to modify legislation based on their views.

[orleans]

47. my congresswoman is a right wing shill

whose daughter is a lobbyist for the drug companies

i won't be calling that asshole.

however, i'm giving this thread a recommendation for congressman anthony weiner and his request to the cbo.

glad to read this.

[druidity33]

48. YAY!

that's fucking great news! I've been complaining about the lack of a single-payer scorecard from the CBO for weeks!

I'm guessing a savings of 700 billion...

a year.


:)

[seafan]

50. Also, paraphrasing Weiner:

He said that the CBO cost analysis of the "other plans" currently being fought over show that those plans start out at ~$300 billion in the hole, because that money flows to the insurance companies.


Single Payer beats that like a drum.



Wonder if Big Insurance/Big Pharma will try to twist some arms over at the CBO....

[invictus]

52. If it is true, then that's great!

[stlsaxman]

53. Happy to think i can take a little credit for this-

on the YouTube AskAnthonyWeiner site 3 weeks back I asked if HR676 had been scored by the CBO and said that I believe it had not.

Maybe he saw my letter and checked it out, then acted on it... :)

Looking last week i noticed no one else had inquired... ;)

[drm604]

62. Good for you.

:applause:

[Amos Moses]

79. nice going

:yourock:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AskAnthonyWeiner

[MrMickeysMom]

85. Ha-Ha-HA!

Hey, it's reached its critical mass, cause I was making phone calls around the same time to all the people riding the fence in congress.

:P

[drm604]

56. K&R

If we can get some real unambiguous numbers from the CBO then maybe there's actually a chance that we could pass this thing in spite of the small percentage of people that make up these screaming mobs.

[redqueen]

57. I love this guy.

Really I do.

Some other House Dems should take a lesson.

[drm604]

61. Out of curiosity, does anyone here have any idea what is required for the CBO to do an analysis?

Does the House have to vote on it? Is a request from one rep sufficient? Does it require X number of reps to make the request? What's the procedure?

Also, what exactly did they request an analysis of? The cost of moving everyone under the existing Medicare plan? The cost of some other plan? If some other plan, what are the details?

[kirby]

64. So is cost the only factor?

I mean, last Friday, the CBO said that preventative health care actually leads to higher costs. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it, right?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Excerpt:

"Preventive medical care includes services such as cancer screening, cholesterol
management, and vaccines. In making its estimates of the budgetary effects of
expanded governmental support for preventive care, CBO takes into account any
estimated savings that would result from greater use of such care as well as the
estimated costs of that additional care. Although different types of preventive care
have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive
services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending
overall.

That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to
cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition
that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has
progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces
spending—for that individual. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care
on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not
know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses."

[Mermaid7]

65. How Can We help? Email to- Congressman Anthony Weiner's Website.

Dear Congressman Weiner,

I clicked on the link on your site, "How Can We Help You?" inadvertantly thinking the question was "how we can help you Congressman Weiner?"

That's what I wanted to do is offer my help to you in anyway I can. I know there are many of us who do (want to help).

What you've been doing recently, as far as challenging the Republicans to vote on dropping Medicare, calling their bluff, and now having COB do a cost analysis of Single Payer, is anything but short of amazing!

You are an genius, and an inspiration to not only your constituents, but to, many, many of us throughout the U.S., and we have your back.

Just ask what you need as far as support from us, and we will, let me say again, we will, gratefully be there!

Thank you sir for your great work.

Keep it up!

[stlsaxman]

66. This is great news! If there was ever a worthy battle- THIS IS IT!

[demodonkey]

67. I said back on July 31 that I had another hero...

YAY! A Progressive Dem with some........ uh, guts!

[MrMickeysMom]

68. Right on! It IS our fight... I'm making calls, starting with congress critter

I was discussing the fact that CBO had not scored a single payer option and was told by a congressional staffer that it WAS being scored in the bill introduced a few weeks back known as HR 3200.

This is where my understanding needs to develop, so let's keep this kicked (It's gonna take me a while to read through and I'd rather do it with discussion HERE!)

:kick:

[Wapsie B]

69. A bit of good news.

Time for me to get in touch with Durbin's office.

[ladywnch]

71. "Medicare for all" ...... maybe that is the way we should be pitching this

this would (should) silence the "keep govt out of my medicare" nutjobs and the socialist crap. Nobody bitches about medicare (why? because it WORKS!) so, make it "medicare for all" Like Newt said on Stephanopolis's show on Sunday.....'medicare is essentially private care funded by the govt' (moron)....well, let's ALL have that plan!

[SKKY]

73. I know a certain little someone who has an eye on 2016...

[Subdivisions]

75. McCaskill just stated categorically that NO SINGLE PAYER

bill will get past the Congress and that there is minimal support for it on Capitol Hill.

[seafan]

77. McCaskill is a ConservaDem and this is what we should expect from them.

Rachel Maddow: Evan Bayh and his "ConservaDem" coalition, March 19, 2009


From the thread above, and it is still true for me today:

I find Claire McCaskill's membership particularly disgusting.

She was a vociferous supporter of Obama early in the process, and worked tirelessly to get him elected.

To learn that she has joined this group of ConservaDems with the intent of putting checks on *any notions* that Obama might have in throwing out 30 years of Reaganism that have so destroyed the quality of life for people, is absolutely unacceptable.


It is painful to watch someone whom you once admired morph into a force whose mission is keeping people devoid of political, economic and social empowerment.


It's time to retire McCaskill. She has shown us who she is.

She will never acknowledge that MEDICARE is single payer.


So what she's essentially telling us is that she does not support expanding Medicare for all of us.


There is something seriously amiss with this type of thinking.

[t0dd]

78. Oh, well, in that case!

:eyes:

[grahamhgreen]

86. A good cost benefit analysis WILL resonate with fiscal conservaties on both sides.