Wait for benefits is 3 years if health care passes

[joeycola]

Source: AP




Wait for benefits is 3 years if health care passes


By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
The Associated Press
Posted: 10/11/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT



WASHINGTON — Sixty years is how long Democrats say they have been pushing for legislation that provides health care access for all Americans. They will have to wait another three if President Barack Obama gets a bill to sign this year.

Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won't start flowing until 2013 — after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.

The eat-your-vegetables- first approach is causing heartburn for some Democrats. Three years is a long time to wait, and opponents could capitalize on misgivings about the complex legislation to undo what would be a signature achievement for Obama.

Obama administration officials and Democratic lawmakers say the reason for the three-year wait is the time it is going to take to set up insurance marketplaces, write consumer protection rules and reconfigure the bureaucracy to carry out the legislation.

It took President George W. Bush's administration two years to phase in the Medicare prescription benefit, a more modest undertaking.
.........................

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13535875?source=searchles

---

Dean proposed to lower the age of Medicare to 50 during this time. I say open it up until the changes take effect if we want to win elections.

[madrchsod]

1. it took 11 months from the signing of the medicare act to pay the first bill

this will take 3 years?......

[gateley]

2. Yeah -- I don't quite get that, either, but that's what they're saying.

They HAVE to get something before the 2010 elections -- what were they thinking???

[JDPriestly]

3. This compromise plan will negatively affect Americans' budgets

Obama does not want to have to defend it in the next election. If it is so bad that they can't bring it in before 2012, I don't think I want it.

I have always been flexible about whether we should have a public option or single payer. I'm beginning to think that single payer is the only way to bring real reform. The bill Obama will sign will be a loser. If it was going to be a winner, he would want it in action before the next election.

[gateley]

6. Good points, and I'm with you on the single payer. It really seems

the way to go.

[Statistical]

4. This is intentional. CBO scores (calculates cost of things) based on 10 years from signing...

not 10 years from enactment.

So by making it not go into effect until 2013 that cuts 3.5 years off the cost.

Of course it is just a numbers game the next decade cost will be higher.

Say the program was going to cost $1T for 10 years. Make most expensive portions not start for 3.5 years = 6.5 years on the score = $650B. BLAM. Just like magic you "reduced the cost" 35%.

Now make the tax increases & medicare cuts go into effect on day one and this program can claim interest for the savings on those 3.5 years. That knocks the "cost" down another $100B or so making the pricetag watered down to $550B.

The rub is that the same hypothetical program will still cost $1T for the NEXT DECADE of course nobody notices the * next to the pricetag.

It is just a game and millions will be out healthcare for 3.5 years in order for the game to be played.

[smoogatz]

5. This POS is a Trojan Horse.

No benefit for three years but the taxes kick in now? Terrible idea--I swear, freaking Baucus is the most powerful Republican in the Senate by far...

[QC]

7. That gives the lobbyists three more years to work their magic. n/t

[Autumn]

8. That is 3 more years of money for

the politicians. Hopefully by then the lobbyists will be in a better position to kill it.