Health Reform to Slash Deficit By $1.3 Trillion over 20 Years

Ezra Klein has the details:

According to a Democratic source, CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. But here are the basic numbers: The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.

To put this in context, that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.

It will be worth digging into these numbers once the full CBO score is released to see, for instance, if it is still the case that roughly half of the the 32 million newly insured Americans under this legislation will be receiving coverage through a government program (Medicaid or CHIP), as well as exactly what aspects of the House legislation have been incorporated into the reconciliation package. But if these numbers are borne out, they would certainly seem to keep Congress on track to sending a final bill to the President's desk this weekend.

Tags: CBO, healthcare reform, deficit (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Good news

There is no reason for the Blue Doggies not to vote for the bill. This a huge first step for universal coverage in America. We are on our way to becoming more civilized.

by Lolis 2010-03-18 12:13PM | 1 recs
good score

Will the Dems get credit for being more fiscally responsible than the GOP (compare this to the unfunded Medicare Part D), or will the media still let GOP talking-points go unanswered?

Any guesses?

by jeopardy 2010-03-18 12:26PM | 0 recs
GAO confirmed the house version pays for itself

A National Health Service included in the legislation spikes the effect even more. GAO confirmed that the house version of Healthcare Reform would pay for itself.

 

Alan Grayson's bill needs to go in with this set of reforms and then it will be katie bar the door in terms of net, positive financial impact. Think of it. One out of Every Six Dollars in the USA is burned right now on healthcare. I think of this as if it were money in my own pocket, right now. Take that one dollar out from the five and the one and leave a lonely lincoln in your pocket.  It really hits home. We spend almost six hundred percent more than our closest neigbor, per capita - without getting much more benefit at all.

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-03-18 01:24PM | 0 recs
Medicaid expansion

t is still the case that roughly half of the the 32 million newly insured Americans under this legislation will be receiving coverage through a government program (Medicaid or CHIP),

This is what conservatives really hate about the bill and is the heart of their opposition. After trying for decades to get rid of medicaid or water it down the idea that it will be strengthened and no longer just be a program for the indigent is just too hard for them to swallow.

by vecky 2010-03-18 01:36PM | 0 recs
would be better if the deficit reduction

came from taxing the rich instead of taxing the middle class (via the excise tax).

by desmoinesdem 2010-03-18 10:59PM | 0 recs
RE: would be better if the deficit reduction

Steve M made this comment in a separate thread, and it made more than a fair amount of sense to me, but deep in the weeds many of the details sound Greek (as the saying goes):

The notion that the costs of the excise tax will be principally borne by the middle class is one of the biggest puke-inducing lies of this entire debate.  But this exemplifies one of my biggest problems with modern progressivism: everyone wants a comfortable middle-class safety net, but if any portion of the burden falls on anyone outside the top 1% of earners then everybody screams bloody murder.  The excise tax is not even a direct revenue measure; it is a cost-control measure that happens to be projected to raise money at the end of the day.

It's worth thinking about the economic theory by which the excise tax is projected to raise money.  It raises money by putting more taxable income in the pockets of those who currently receive "Cadillac" health care benefits in lieu of wages.  Yes, some of these people fall within the category of middle class, but the reality is that there is only a "middle-class tax increase" in the sense that someone making $60,000 last year might make $65,000 this year, and thus have a higher tax bill.  I call this a win-win for the taxpayer and the revenue coffers.

Of course, there are those who doubt the theory that wages will go up at all as a result of the elimination of the tax incentive for offering "Cadillac" plans, but if wages don't go up then there sure as heck isn't a tax increase.

I wish liberals could figure out a way to argue against something without sounding like conservatives.  The people at FDL are not doing God's work on this issue.

Hopefully, Steve won't mind my reposting his comment.  Any thoughts?

by fogiv 2010-03-19 03:03AM | 0 recs
RE: would be better if the deficit reduction

 FDL is certainly not doing good work on HCR particularly at this critical moment - but I would hesitate to criticize them here due to their protected status. Steve M's explanation is quite good and very worthy of reposting. Thanks.

 Generally speaking, I've found that those who argue against full participation tend to be tea-baggers, sand-baggers, or freeloaders. Many still live with Mom and won't pay her rent or help with the dishes.

  

by QTG 2010-03-19 03:58AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads