Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs

abcnews.com ^ | August 09, 2009 | ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care -- an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.

Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives. But, Elmendorf wrote, it may not save money as Democrats had been arguing.

"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," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.

[WayneS]

Has he been turned in to the Obamessiah for engaging in fishy speech against “The Final Solution”?

[sono]

There you go again ...

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

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

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=345

[HiTech RedNeck]

What care, what costs... these have to be specified before the assertion can even rise to the dignity of falsehood.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

This was slipped out on Fri. and 0bama lied on Mon.

[sono]

You betcha!

[org.whodat]

True, then all thirty million illegals will come out of hiding. As well as all those that can walk, crawl are fly across the border.

[WayneS]

Good.

We wouldn’t want anyone to get away with besmirching the wonderful plans the Obamessiah has in store for us, would we?

;^)

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

In their continuing struggles with CBO, Democrats from President Obama on down have expressed frustration that Elmendorf doesn't give Democrats' health care reform proposals sufficient credit for cost cutting through preventive care.

0bama will call the head of CBO to the WH again.We all know he and Rahm are not worried about ethics, they are desperate for pure power.

[jessduntno]

Flag on the play! Notify the White House!

[jessduntno]

Flag on the play! Notify the White House!

[LS]

Watching Sphincter in his town hall, I was alerted to the fact that in NO WAY CAN THIS BECOME ABOUT DEFICITS!

If we allow them to shift the playing field to "efficiency" and budgets, we lose, because they can ALWAYS come up with a model that is "revenue neutral."

THE DEBATE MUST BE ABOUT RATIONING, END-OF-LIFE MANDATES, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' COVERAGE, AND DESTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

[Nevermore]

"THE DEBATE MUST BE ABOUT RATIONING, END-OF-LIFE MANDATES, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' COVERAGE, AND DESTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR."

Wrong: it must be about ALL of it, including the financials: full-court press; pressure any & everywhere it can be applied. Anything half-hearted or incomplete will fail.

Before Demonrats will surrender this issue, it must be clear that there is nowhere to hide, no cover to scurry under.

[LS]

I repeat, if this debate ends up about "budgets" and "deficits," we've already lost, because no one cares about budgets and deficits. If they did, they would have said so a long time ago. Seniors don't because they won't be around to bear the burden; and young people don't because they live in a la-la land of thinking it will never be real.

So I repeat. If this becomes about whether we can "afford it," the game is over.

[AFPhys]

Well fancy that. When demand gets forced up, prices go up!

Perhaps I should write an economics book based on this new principle!