The Congressional Budget Office has released their preliminary estimate of the cost of the Kennedy-Dodd healthcare bill, and it is not pretty. The bottom line is that the CBO estimates that a) the bill will result in a net decrease of uninsured of somewhere between 16-17 million, and a net cost over a 10-year span of $1 Trillion:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.
I am not a mathematician, but it seems to me that this bill would cost approximately $6,000 per year per person insured; or approximately $500 a month - or substantially more than it would cost the government just to write everyone a check to go get a BCBS plan. Additionally, although the price tag on this plan starts with a “T” rather than a “B”, the net decrease in uninsured will be a whopping 33%.
But that is not even the worst part of the bill. The CBO reports that the $1T price tag does not even take into consideration the two most potentially costly aspects of the bill, both of which are being pushed by Democratic Senators like Dodd: the humongous Medicaid expansion to subsidize coverage for some uninsured, and the much-ballyhooed “public healthcare option.” The Medicaid expansion alone is expected to cost well over $1 Trillion if States are going to be required to increase their own Medicaid payouts as well. The cost of the “public healthcare option” is harder to quantify in terms of absolute dollars, but the effects on the healthcare market and the economy in general will almost certainly be staggering. And yet, Obama and Dodd continue to push this bill directly in the face of the staggering budget deficits they have already rung up.
Thankfully, one of the principal architects of this horrible bill is facing retirement in 2010, and you can help him get there. Donate to Rob Simmons and help to prevent the massive economic consequences of this Obama/Dodd bill.

Math
ntvtxngop Tuesday, June 16th at 10:21AM EDT (link)Isn’t $1 trillion divided by 39 million people around $25k?
You forgot to subtract the 23 million who would lose their private insurance.
Leon H. Wolf Tuesday, June 16th at 10:37AM EDT (link)Try that and run the math again.
————
They’re *illusions*, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money. Or candy!
BINGO
farstar99 Tuesday, June 16th at 11:03AM EDT (link)It’ll wind up costing a lot more than the projection for that, and many other reasons. Everybody will be uninsured unless they take the government deal. It has happened EVERYWHERE this nonsense has been forced on the people, and that is precisely their plan. They’ve SAID as much.
“Pfft. What’s another trillion bucks? We better start watching those printing and copying costs, though, because pretty soon, you’re talking about real money.”
Math
SgtKirk Tuesday, June 16th at 10:21AM EDT (link)I am not a math genius either, and I certainly do not want socialized medicine, but it seems to me that the math from the CBO doesn’t add up correctly. If there is an increase of 39 million and a combined decrease of 23 million (15 + 8). Doesn’t that equal a net increase of 16 million? Am I missing something here? Either way I think it is a horrible plan, but I just don’t agree on the mathematics.
Well, the estimate said "between 16-17 million."
Leon H. Wolf Tuesday, June 16th at 10:38AM EDT (link)I was giving the plan the benefit of the doubt. Because that’s how I roll.
————
They’re *illusions*, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money. Or candy!
Sorry,
SgtKirk Tuesday, June 16th at 11:19AM EDT (link)According to the CBO, this is a loss of 16 - 17 million, but there numbers show a gain of that amount. An addition of 39 million combined with a loss of 16-17 million is a net gain. I know I am being picky, sorry. I am an accountant so I can’t help myself!! I will quit now since I don’t want Obamacare whether it is a gain or loss.
Well, the language they use is confusing
Leon H. Wolf Tuesday, June 16th at 11:40AM EDT (link)It is a loss in the amount of uninsured. In other words, they are talking about the net gain of insured people, which is 16-17 million. They arrive at that figure by taking the 39 million who will be covered under the plan, minus the 23 million who will lose their private care.
————
They’re *illusions*, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money. Or candy!
Gotcha
SgtKirk Tuesday, June 16th at 11:50AM EDT (link)That’s my bad. I was reading it wrong, thanks for correcting me.
you guys are crazy
campbell2016 Tuesday, June 16th at 10:26AM EDT (link)don’t you understand that when u spend a trillion more dollars of money we don’t haveit will lead us to a balanced budget and an economic utopia..
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
Ronald Reagan
Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.Ronald Reagan
Forget the math
johnt Tuesday, June 16th at 10:32AM EDT (link)to take it seriously is to evidence the remnants of a faith in government. Whatever is estimated is underestimated, intentionally or otherwise, who cares? We had estimates for Medicare and Medicaid also as I recall.
The Dems know exactly what they are doing, simply put they want the population of the USA to be de facto employee’s of the government, low level employees, a definitely lower tier from today’s overpaid, job secured lard assed wastes. Obedient employees at that, sort of like sheep.
Bill Ayers must love it.
“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville
But, 95% of Americans will get a tax cut
jimmuy8 Tuesday, June 16th at 10:36AM EDT (link)and by tax cut, I mean tax increase, and by 95% I mean 99% (the 1% don’t pay taxes because they are in training for Democrat appointments.).
And ABC-DNC will be giving several million dollars of free advertising to Dr. Utopia to sell this thing.
Do we not have someone with knowledge of FCC and FEC laws that could make enough a stink to shut this down?
Ah, the negative tax cut <font color="OldLace">--nt--</font>
6eorge Jetson Tuesday, June 16th at 11:09AM EDT (link)More Porkulus
Spartan4Life Tuesday, June 16th at 10:57AM EDT (link)What ever happened to the $787B, anyway? Guess we’re not supposed to care.
And why isn’t anybody asking the question why any American citizen should have to pay for someone else’s healthcare? I am having enough trouble paying my own damn bills.
Because *sob* <insert emotional argument here>.
farstar99 Tuesday, June 16th at 11:54AM EDT (link)Compassion…ramble,ramble,ramble.
Healthcare is a right, and this woman here needs .
Have you no empathy? Is your heart so cold that you will not live in poverty so that might be rich?
I'll try again.
farstar99 Tuesday, June 16th at 11:57AM EDT (link)(Oh, yeah. HTML.)
“Because *sob* –insert emotional argument here–.
Compassion…ramble,ramble,ramble. “Free” universal healthcare is a right, and this woman here —-point to Obama shill planted in audience—-needs X.
Have you no empathy? Is your heart so cold that you will not live in poverty so that —-insert name of Obama crony czar—-might be rich?”