Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (7547)	7/14/2009 7:15:48 PM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab. For as long as this isn't a socialistic redistributionist scheme, it's fine with me. Now, if I could only get the brewers and the rich guys to pick up my bar tab, I'd be a real happy camper..... :)

To: John Koligman who wrote (7547)	7/14/2009 7:21:34 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

House Democrats said the income tax increase in their bill would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income. The wealthiest 4 percent of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million. CBO says House health plan will cost $1.04 trillion, squeeze private insurance By: Susan Ferrechio Chief Congressional Correspondent 07/14/09 7:00 PM EDT The Congressional Budget Office has put a $1.04 trillion pricetag on a House plan to overhaul health care that it says will provide insurance by 2019 for 37 million peole who currently have no coverage. Democrats introduced an incomplete version of the the House bill, which calls for creating a robust government-run insurance option and would require employers to either provide insurance or pay a new tax. The bill is supposed to be finalized in three committees in the coming weeks. The CBO estimate confirms some of the fears of critics of the bill who say a public option would have a massive advantage over the private insurance industry and would thus threaten its existence. According to the report, premiums for the public option would be about 10 percent cheaper than private insurance. And since doctors would be paid close to the rate now offered under Medicare, some would not participate in the public option, according to the CBO report. "Even so, CBOs judgment is that a substantial number of providers would elect to participate in the public plan,in part because they would expect a plan run by Health and Human Services to attract substantial enrollment," the report states. The CBO estimates that up to 10 million people would eventually be enrolled in the public option, once it is fully implemented. By 2019, according to the CBO report, about 17 million people who are not eligible for Medicare would remain uninsured, half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants.

To: John Koligman who wrote (7547)	7/14/2009 7:25:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

So, the reality is the "run rate" for the second five years is 1.7 Trillion for ten years. And it will escalate after that. I cannot believe these people are going to try to pass this POS. ========================= "This is the ‘fierce urgency’ of chutzpah," said Don Stewart, an aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He writes that "the average cost of the second five years is about $171 billion annually. Or, put another way, 85 percent of the costs are in the second five years of the bill (2015-2019). So…they’ve backloaded the costs and the consequences until after the next presidential election. They’ve also lowered their per-year cost by not implementing the bill until four years into their budget window." House Republican leadership aides call this "scored" with an asterisk: "Actually, CBO didn’t score the bill," Michael Steel, an aide to House Minority Leader John Boehner, wrote in an e-mail. "In the second paragraph of CBO’s letter, it says, 'It is important to note, however, that those estimates are based on specifications provided by the tri-committee group rather than an analysis of the language released today.' So they scored what Democrats asked them to score. Not the actual bill." firstread.msnbc.msn.com