Posted on 03/23/2010 5:05:29 AM PDT by Timeout
Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
__________________
Interesting op-ed, especially given that it's in the NYT.
But I was struck by this paragraph:
Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.I've been calling all over Washington since last August trying to find out how many new federal employees would be hired to staff all those new agencies. I even talked to one of the "scorers" at CBO. To a person, I was told: "We don't know that".
In other words, it's not included in the bill's costs? This op-ed is the first published reference I've seen, and it appears to confirm what I suspected.
I will say, I think the $114 billion "annually" must be an error. Even if that figure is for 10 years, it would mean 228,000 new bureaucrats at an average $50k/year. And---keep in mind---they will not all be in place for the full 10 years---so it's probably even more.
Does anyone have any more information on this? Has anyone found ANYTHING that tells us what it will cost to implement this scheme? All I've heard is IRS information. But there are hundreds of new agencies, commissions, etc. created in this bill. What will it cost to staff/equip all of them?
Where was the NYT BEFORE this P.O.S. bill was passed?
Congress is honest with America. BARF
Sure they are. So now and until this thing gets repealed, then NO additional funds should be appropriated if it any way shape or form increases the deficit.
I was getting ready to ask the same thing?
At the numbers? No, that the NYT would publish this piece.
As I understand the issue, it seems that we are taking from Seniors (Medicare) to fund 30M Americans who do not have insurance. The 30M would each get a subsidy of $6K annually to buy insurance. I think this is where most of the money goes -- not to set up bureaucracies.
Your general point is well taken however. There will be a massive bureaucracy, but I am not sure the bill spells out how big and how it will be organized.
Currently, Medicare and Medicaid medical claim reimbursements are contracted out to existing insurance entities, i.e. Blue Cross Blue Shield; who receive administrative fees.
IMHO This process is intended be implemented for all other Obamacare medical expenditures - by contracting private insurance companies to process claims...until the Federal Goverment takes them over lock, stock and barrel.
The question has to be: What happens to all the premiums held in reserve for the existing health insurance policies?
According to several State Insurance sites - there are $trillions in reserve as required by State Insurance laws.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!
No, I think you’re misunderstanding it.
The subsidies and Medicare cuts ARE in the bill. The writer is clearly referring to “discretionary” costs that are NOT in the CBO score.
He never says what those costs are. But calling them “operating costs” and “discretionary” leads me to assume he’s referring to costs of staffing/equipping those new agencies.
Obviously, this op-ed doesn’t provide those answers. But it royally pisses me off that, after a YEAR of intense debate, I couldn’t get a single Republican to ask this explosive question.
Yeah, late in the game they came out with the IRA talking points. But my guess is the public would be even more alarmed to find out there will be a quarter million NEW federal workers!
IRA = IRS
My Employer pays my monthly Health Care Premiums, and those of my Wife IF she is not employed or her employer does not provide a Health Insurance plan. Her employer currently does not. If she does have a plan available (and now it's mandated that her employer must), then I pay $175 a month if I want her to stay on my company's plan. So either way we have to now pay a monthly premium for her, where I didn’t before.
Obama has taken a minimum of $175 a month out of my pocket, and that's assuming premiums stay the same, which they won't.
YOu got off light.
Our CEO has already let all of us know that as soon as this kicks in the company is cancelling our insurance completely.
Right now the company I work for provides full family coverage for every employee for free. This is at a cost of $1900 per employee per month. Our owner does this because he wants to, even though the bean counters and auditers tell him it is assinine.
This is not a standard coverage either, it is the top package BC/BS offers. There is no deductible, and all services are covered 100%. All we are responsible for is a $10 co-pay.
Obviously this is what Obama and his band of Thugs refer to as a “Cadillac” policy, and yes I realize how truly blessed I am to work for this firm.
Now, here is the bottom line, our Ceo pointed out that the new taxes and fees imposed by ObamaCare will render our company as unprofitable — so he has a clear choice:
1. Continue to provide insurance at a cost of 1900 a month per employee and go bankrupt
2. Pay a fine of up to $3000 PER YEAR and cancel all health coverage.
Also, just to be clear to everyone, the insurance we get is not at the cost of our income. The average income of my company is among the top 10% in our industry. So we are well paid, and well insured — our CEO does this because his employees reward him with work that befits the treatment he gives us. We work our asses off and have made our company the go to choice in our respective field.
You reminded me of an astonishing item I read a couple of months back. I think it was in the San Jose Mercury News...it was about the unaffordable health-care-for-life provided to city employees.
But here’s the part that gobsmacked me: Spouse qualify for dependent coverage under the city plan. BUT-—if an employee’s spouse has insurance at her job or elsewhere-— the city employee IS PAID the amount the city would have paid for his spouse...every year! I think it was estimated to be around $16k per year.
Outrageous. I wonder if that little benny will be affected by the health care bill. (Probably not, they’re union and I don’t think union plans are not included in the bill)
btt
It's just like the 'Rat politicians who "voted against" ObamaCare (because Comrade Pelosi told them they could). Pure Baloney! And now they want to pretend to be serious journalist.
...the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out. In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.