The Baucus Proposal Is Important Because...
Focus on the legislative forest rather than the trees and it's not hard to see why yesterday may end up being listed by historians as one of the key days in the health care debate.
Even though it was almost immediately criticized by some Republicans and Democrats, and even though the Congressional Budget Office's analysis shows that, as proposed, the bill would decrease the deficit, the proposal introduced yesterday by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is an extremely important step in the health care reform process for just one reason: it enables the process to move forward.
Don't assume that the bill as introduced is what will be adopted by the finance committee or full Senate or what Baucus expects to be adopted. My strong guess is that Baucus has deals with various members of his committee and others to allow them to offer amendments or otherwise insist on certain changes as the process continues so that they, rather than he, will get credit for them.
Baucus has just one goal -- get a bill adopted by the finance committee. Whether what he proposed is acceptable to the House is irrelevant at the moment.
As tens of millions are being
As tens of millions are being required to pay for health-care insurance, how much consideration does the CBO give to the effect this will have on consumption from this group?
Perhaps as the CBO claims the Baucus Bill might bring down the deficit, but that seems to imply that there are no costs. Does anyone know what the extent of the CBO's accounting is? Has the debate reached a point where partisan accounting is used so much that all of the information is misleading? (This could of course be the reporting and not the accounting).
What do you mean by
What do you mean by consumption?
If you are talking about the oft-quoted '70% of the economy' described as individual consumption then health care expenses are also included in that total.
Wonk's question
Obviously,, heath-care expenses are included in consumption. My point is that the purchasing power of those being required to have health insurance will be diminished. This will of course affect other parts of the economy and whether the CBO considers this - is my question.
So the rest of us should pay?
If tens of millions are not been "paying for healthcare insurance" now, that mens when they go to the emergency room or have a serious accident (broken bones, burns, etc.) or other serious health problems, the rest of us get stuck holding the bill, and it is a much larger bill because they are using the lease efficient and moth expensive form of delivery of medical services. If this were done with a true public option, or better yet, Medicare for All, it would save us money (relative to the hodgepodge private system we have now) and everybody would be covered and have a place to go and be treated when they get sick. Even if it amounts to a young healthy person paying a relatively small amount to cover hospital or medical costs over the first $10,000 in any year, which would not be that expensive, it would represent a sea change for the better.
This is an emotional issue
This is an emotional issue for many Americans. Obama’s health-care promises are being exposed by the details of the actual legislation, and we WILL see costs rise.
I'm not as optimistic as you, Stan
I'm normally a pretty optimistic person, but on this Baucus proposal, I realize I'm more pessimistic than you or Maya are. In fact, a lot about the Baucus plan reminds me--believe it or not--of the Bush tax cuts (see my post on this over on my blog).