CBO says GOP Health-plan would barely make a dent

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_republicans

we have 30 million Americans without health insurance, and according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, only 10% of those people would be covered under the Republican plan.

Wow, I thought the Republicans were serious this time about contributing to the health-care reform debate. I guess not.

Maybe it is time for them to just step aside and let the Democrats do the real work. Sorry GOPers.

Very too little...and very too late.

[drkitten]

Wow, I thought the Republicans were serious this time about contributing to the health-care reform debate. I guess not.



Why on earth did you think that? It was obvious to me from the get-go that this was just an attempt to delay and to sow dissension....

[mhaze]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_republicans

we have 30 million Americans without health insurance, and according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, only 10% of those people would be covered under the Republican plan.

Wow, I thought the Republicans were serious this time about contributing to the health-care reform debate. I guess not.

Maybe it is time for them to just step aside and let the Democrats do the real work. ...Sure, at a cost of about 30K per individual.

Because money grows on trees, let's spend it.

[Lurker]

Sure, at a cost of about 30K per individual.

Because money grows on trees, let's spend it.

Of course that 30k per individual you cite is for the life of the program, right? I will spend far more than 30k for my private coverage right now.

[Newtons Bit]

I thought the purpose of health-reform was to lower costs to the average consumer? Or is it to get coverage to everybody? Both?

I can't keep track anymore.

[MattusMaximus]

Ouch, not good news for the GOP.

Of course, this is because the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is being run by a bunch of socialists :)

[drkitten]

I thought the purpose of health-reform was to lower costs to the average consumer? Or is it to get coverage to everybody? Both?


Both, I believe. Ordinarily, I don't believe in "chasing three rabbits at once" types of goals, but in this instance they're quite compatible; lowering costs will make coverage more widely available, and making it more widely available should also lower costs by widening the risk pool.

[mhaze]

Of course that 30k per individual you cite is for the life of the program, right? I will spend far more than 30k for my private coverage right now.

Umm, no. Because the benefits kick in in 2014 but the costs go up immediately, so for Democrat plan you'd get 6 years of benefits for $30k.