Report shows Health Care Costs will increase

[Guest Dragonman]

The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."

Obama covered up HHS report until after healthcare vote? | Washington Examiner

After repeateded telling Americans his health care reform package would save money Obumblers SOP in action.

[USMCJG]

Not surprising. Anyone with the capability for rational thought could understand that this plan was going to cost more for all but the very poor. There is nothing on earth that the government can do cheaper or more efficiently than private industry. And they have proven it over and over again. Some people never learn.

[DWARREN123]

I thought everyone already knew this!

[Mark@Sea]

I'd sure like some input from the TGO members who told us how great the healthcare reform bill was... the report not only forecasts higher costs but more difficulty in seeing a doctor. Pretty much what those of us who have a basic understanding of market forces said would happen.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I'd sure like some input from the TGO members who told us how great the healthcare reform bill was... the report not only forecasts higher costs but more difficulty in seeing a doctor. Pretty much what those of us who have a basic understanding of market forces said would happen.

Racist wingnut!!!!

[Rightwinger]

I'd sure like some input from the TGO members who told us how great the healthcare reform bill was... the report not only forecasts higher costs but more difficulty in seeing a doctor. Pretty much what those of us who have a basic understanding of market forces said would happen.

Their all still hiding from the challenge to make a charitable donation I threw down....and yes, it was noted that not one of them stepped up to back their dialogue.

It's always big talk when dealing with OTP

(other people's money)

[mikegideon]

Not disputing it, but does anybody have a link to the report?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They tend to be quiet when these things happen, Mark.

[mikegideon]

They tend to be quiet when these things happen, Mark.

I'm not gonna be quiet, but I'm still in the "Jury's Out" crowd. It's reasonable to believe that costs are going up, especially since they were anyway. I want to see the report. Everybody is making predictions, and few, if any have a successful track record of predicting anything.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Usually when the government gets a hold of something, it ruins it. Even though costs

are going up in health care, the services going down are the real problem. If the fed

can't operate what it already does control, successfully, why would anyone expect anything good to happen with health care? The model it is based on has been shown to be a failure in other countries. It's ill conceived, also. Too many politicians went against their constituents to make it happen, and too many got their favors handed to them to vote for it to ever be anything more than just another way to sink this country. The ones who read the bill knew better, if after just reading part of it.

We'll see how the jury decides this, too, just like the stimulus, TARP and auto bailout.

You may be right, though. But I think the hole is dug real deep to climb out.

[Mark@Sea]

The report was written by actuaries. Making predictions is what they do. Saying "costs were going up anyway" is a non starter; the report states that costs for the consumer will rise higher than without the bill.

The White House sat on this report for two weeks beforehand.

Is the art of doing your own research lost?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And if they actually sat on that report, it should be criminal... except politicians can do that. We need to get rid of a bunch of them. Then make some changes in the way politicians can conduct

themselves. Something along the lines of treason for a charge for their conduct.

Edited April 28, 2010 by 6.8 AR
add

[molonlabetn]

This is only surprising to those who were fooling themselves, or don't care because it won't be them paying for it.

[mikegideon]

The report was written by actuaries. Making predictions is what they do. Saying "costs were going up anyway" is a non starter; the report states that costs for the consumer will rise higher than without the bill.

The White House sat on this report for two weeks beforehand.

Is the art of doing your own research lost?

I guess. I did take a stab at it. Point is, we're debating something we haven't seen, and relying on some blogger to interpret it. I only hoped somebody could share a link. Still waiting...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No doubt, molonlabetn

[mikegideon]

And if they actually sat on that report, it should be criminal... except politicians can do that. We need to get rid of a bunch of them. Then make some changes in the way politicians can conduct

themselves. Something along the lines of treason for a charge for their conduct.

I agree, and it will be a significant reduction in expenses, with only six or seven people remaining in Congress

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I looked and couldn't find any link that had the report. I doubt it will ever be made available, also. The story originated from an "HHS anonymous source". You know,

maybe "Deepthroat" could have been reincarnated. But I did try to find it, also.

[raydog1]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/hhs_reports_of_buried_health_c.html

"If this issue hadn't consumed my entire day so far," said Richard S. Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, "I would have found it fairly amusing." The article, he said, was "completely inaccurate."

[mikegideon]

Right Now - HHS: Reports about health care cost study 'completely inaccurate'

"If this issue hadn't consumed my entire day so far," said Richard S. Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, "I would have found it fairly amusing." The article, he said, was "completely inaccurate."

ding ding ding. That's why I was asking for a link.

[Mark@Sea]

Read that wapo article carefully. It implies, not contradicts.

[strickj]

I'm not gonna be quiet, but I'm still in the "Jury's Out" crowd. It's reasonable to believe that costs are going up, especially since they were anyway. I want to see the report. Everybody is making predictions, and few, if any have a successful track record of predicting anything.

I agree with this.

I also find it kinda humorous that so many here that continuously says the Gov fails at everything, is taking a report from the Gov to heart

HHS: Reports about health care cost study 'completely inaccurate'

For nearly two full days, this anonymously sourced story in the American Spectator -- alleging that the Department of Health and Human Services buried an actuarial report on the costs of health care reform -- has burned up conservative blogs. But HHS tells me that the story isn't true.

"If this issue hadn’t consumed my entire day so far," said Richard S. Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, "I would have found it fairly amusing." The article, he said, was "completely inaccurate."

"We began working on the reconciliation bill for the health reform legislation once it was publicly issued on March 18 – three days before the House vote took place on March 21," said Foster. "Because of the details and complexity of the legislation, it wasn’t possible to estimate the package before the Senate vote.

"We began work on the estimates right away, but we didn’t finalize them until the afternoon of April 22. We finished our memorandum on the health reform act later that same day and immediately sent it to those individuals and organizations that had requested it, including Congressional staff, HHS staff, and media representatives. Consistent with the Office of the Actuary’s longstanding independent role on behalf of Congress, we did not seek approval or clearance from HHS (or anyone else) before issuing our analysis."