Day One of Obamacare’s Exchanges, By the Numbers

Obamacare’s exchanges have now been “open” (such as it is) for more than 24 hours. The results are in, and they’re not promising:

0—Enrollment navigators certified in Wisconsin in time for the start of enrollment.

0—Individuals one North Carolina insurer was able to sign up for subsidized insurance.

3—Months President Obama warned Americans could face glitches when trying to sign up.

4—Hours Maryland’s exchange opening was delayed.

7—Miles one Indiana resident drove to obtain enrollment assistance; after receiving little information and a four-page paper application, the potential applicant called the trip “a waste of time.”

22—Actual enrollees in Connecticut’s exchange out of more than 10,000 individuals who visited the website by mid-afternoon, a conversion rate of 0.22 percent.

34—Minutes one Politico reporter listened to “smooth jazz” before reaching an actual call-center representative.

35­—Minutes one MSNBC reporter spent attempting to enroll online, before finally giving up.

47—States whose exchange websites “turned up frequent error messages.”

1,289—Days between the signing of Obamacare and yesterday’s launch, a gap which prompted one insurance broker to comment, “You would just think that with all this time they’ve had to get it set up and ready to go there would have been a better premiere.”

2,400—Individuals who had their Social Security numbers and other personal data disclosed even before the exchanges opened for business.

Not only were the American people faced with major glitches surrounding the exchanges, but they also faced a wall of silence from bureaucrats when looking for explanations for the delays.

The latest in a long line of Obamacare implementation glitches and failures demonstrates how the law is inherently unworkable. It’s why Congress needs to stop Obamacare now.

This post was originally published at The Daily Signal.

Morning Bell: The IRS, Obamacare, and You, By the Numbers

Chilling new details emerged yesterday about the IRS targeting scandal, as representatives from six conservative groups testified before Congress about the scrutiny and demands they faced from Obama administration bureaucrats.

Yesterday’s testimony reminded us once again why Washington bureaucrats cannot be trusted, and why Americans should be so concerned about the new powers granted to the IRS as a result of Obamacare.

These powers are so vast, in fact, they’re difficult to put into words. So instead, we decided to give you the numbers:

18New taxes in Obamacare, including 12 that directly violate then-Senator Barack Obama’s “firm pledge” to those making under $250,000 per year that he would not “raise any of your taxes.”

47—New provisions Obamacare charges the IRS with implementing, according to the Government Accountability Office.

$695Tax for not buying “government-approved” health insurance the IRS will be charged with enforcing on all Americans.

1,954—Full-time bureaucrats the IRS wants to devote to Obamacare implementation and enforcement in the upcoming fiscal year.

60,000,000—Medical records the IRS has been charged with improperly seizing, raising concerns about whether the agency can handle the personal health insurance information all Americans will be required to submit to the IRS.

$439,584,000—The IRS’s request for new spending on Obamacare implementation in the upcoming fiscal year; the request did not specify how much of those funds the IRS will spend on the “Cupid shuffle.”

6,100,000,000—Man-hours Americans already devote to tax compliance, according to the National Taxpayer Advocate, a burden that will rise significantly thanks to Obamacare.

$1,000,000,000,000—New revenue raised by Obamacare in its first 10 years alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, sums that will only rise in future decades.

If ever there were an argument as to why Obamacare should be repealed and defunded, these numbers—coupled with the IRS revelations of recent weeks—tell the tale.

This post was originally published at The Daily Signal.

Obamacare Implementation By the Numbers

One year after Obamacare’s enactment,[i] a look at its implementation reveals how the legislation has failed to deliver on costs, premiums, spending, and preserving Americans’ existing coverage:

19—States where parents can no longer buy child-only insurance policies as a result of the law[ii]

30—States suing to block the law from taking effect, or requesting waivers from its requirements[iii]

51—Percentage of American workers who will lose their current health coverage by 2013, according to the Administration’s own estimates[iv]

1,270—New bureaucrats requested by the Internal Revenue Service to implement the law this year[v]

$2,100—Increase in individual insurance premiums due to Obamacare, according to the Congressional Budget Office[vi]

$2,500—Premium reduction promised by candidate Obama “by the end of my first term as President”[vii]

6,578—Pages of new regulations issued implementing Obamacare through March 14, 2011[viii]

800,000—Reduction in the American labor force due to Obamacare provisions that “will effectively increase marginal tax rates, which will also discourage work,” according to the CBO[ix]

2,624,720—Total individuals in 1,040 plans granted waivers thus far exempting them from the law’s insurance mandates; nearly half of whom participate in union plans[x]

7,400,000—Reduction in Medicare Advantage enrollment as a result of Obamacare, resulting in a loss of choice for seniors and millions of beneficiaries losing their current health plan[xi]

40,000,000—Firms subject to the health law’s new 1099 reporting requirements, which the National Federation of Independent Business called a “tremendous new paperwork compliance burden”[xii]

$118,000,000,000—New costs imposed on states to implement Obamacare—budgetary costs that will lead to reduced services for other state programs like education or to higher state taxes[xiii]

$310,800,000,000—Projected increase in health costs due to Obamacare, according to the independent Medicare actuary, who called its promise of lower costs “false, more so than true”[xiv]

$552,200,000,000—Amount of higher taxes Americans will pay if Obamacare remains in place[xv]

$1,390,000,000,000—Federal spending on new entitlements during fiscal years 2012-2021 according to the CBO, a 48 percent increase from an earlier estimate[xvi]

Even though we have seen only a few of the law’s initial provisions take effect, American families and businesses are already facing higher costs, economic uncertainty, and loss of their current coverage. How much longer will these ill effects persist before the President and Democrats in Congress admit that their legislation will harm, not help, the American people?

 

[i] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), P.L. 111-148

[ii] Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Republican staff report, January 27, 2011, http://help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Child%20Only%20Insurance%20National%20Survey.pdf

[iii] List of states suing and further details available at http://www.healthcarelawsuits.org/; among those states not suing, Kentucky and New Hampshire have applied for waivers from the law’s medical loss ratio requirement; see “Maine Gets Break in Federal Health Care Overhaul” by David Sharp, Associated Press, March 8, 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_maine_2.

[iv] Interim final rule by Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services regarding grandfathered health insurance status, released June 14, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14488.pdf, Table 3, p. 34553

[v] “Obama’s Budget Offers Few Clues on Health Overhaul” by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, February 22, 2011, http://www.aolnews.com/story/obamas-budget-offers-few-clues-on-health/1605467/.

[vi] Letter from CBO to Senator Bayh, November 30, 2009, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

[vii] “Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan,” Obama for America campaign document, http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf; “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Debate” by Kevin Sack, New York Times July 23, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?ei=5124&en=59763b2937c15bd3&ex=1374552000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print

[viii] Includes 52 separate proposed rules, interim final rules, requests for information, notices, and other related regulatory actions related to PPACA released by federal agencies or published in the Federal Register between March 23, 2010 (the date of enactment) and March 1, 2011. Spreadsheet with citations and page counts available upon request.

[ix] “CBO: Health Law to Shrink Workforce by 800,000” by J. Lester Feder and Kate Nocera, Politico February 10, 2010, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49273.html. See also “The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update,” Congressional Budget Office, August 2010, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf Box 2-1, Effects of Recent Health Care Legislation on Labor Markets, pp. 66-67.

[x] Lists available through the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 2011 Objectives, June 30, 2010, National Taxpayer Advocate, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/nta2011objectivesfinal.pdf, pp. 9-13; National Federation of Independent Business release, July 25, 2010, http://www.nfib.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=e8uuuI20Cbs%3d&tabid=1083

[xiii] Medicaid Expansion in the New Health Law: Costs to States, House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Finance Committee Republican staff report, March 1, 2011, http://energycommerce.house.gov/media/file/PDFs/030111MedicaidReport.pdf

[xiv] Estimate of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” as amended, memo from Richard Foster, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, April 22, 2010, http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf; Richard Foster testimony before House Budget Committee, January 26, 2011, video available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC9rhGWJA2w

[xv] Joint Committee on Taxation, revenue effects of PPACA and reconciliation bill, March 20, 2010, http://jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3672, and Congressional Budget Office score of PPACA and reconciliation bill, March 20, 2010, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf.

[xvi] Congressional Budget Office, score of H.R. 2, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12069/hr2.pdf. Earlier score of H.R. 3590, dated March 20, 2010, covered fiscal years 2010-2019; http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf.

This Morning’s Berwick Hearing By the Numbers

This morning’s Finance Committee hearing featuring testimony by CMS Administrator Donald Berwick adjourned almost as quickly as it began due to a series of votes on the Senate floor.  It’s worth noting that this morning’s vote series was already scheduled at the time the hearing was announced last week – meaning the scheduling conflict was easily preventable, had the majority chosen another time for the hearing.  Here’s a quick look at how the hearing shaped up:

10:03 – Time hearing began

10:27 – Time questioning began

11:23 – Time hearing adjourned

56 – Total minutes for questioning

4 – Number of Republican Senators able to question Dr. Berwick (Grassley, Hatch, Bunning, and Ensign)

Compare these numbers to the universe of material about which Senators may wish to query Dr. Berwick:

2,700 – Pages in the health care law (including reconciliation legislation and Indian Health Service provisions)

4,103 – Pages of regulations implementing the health care law released between March 23 and September 23

Thousands – Pages of Dr. Berwick’s controversial speeches, journal articles, and other writings over the past 30-plus years

Given the plethora of potential questions and the modicum of time Senators had to ask them, there’s one other key number to keep in mind:

November 29 – Date the Senate returns from Thanksgiving break

Will Chairman Baucus call a follow-up hearing to give all Senators a fair opportunity to ask questions – and if so, when?  As Dr. Berwick himself would say, “‘Some’ is not a number, ‘soon’ is not a time…”

Health Care “Reform” Implementation By the Numbers

Six months after enactment of Democrats’ new health care law,[i] a look at the first stages of its implementation reveals how the legislation falls short with respect to costs, premiums, preserving Americans’ existing coverage, and providing full transparency and accountability:

4,103—Pages of regulations issued on the health care law through September 17, 2010[ii]

12—Number of final regulations not subjected to public scrutiny before taking effect[iii]

5—Missed implementation deadlines to date[iv]

16—Unanswered letters from House and Senate Republicans to the Administration on the health law[v]

22—States that have joined legal actions to block all or part of the law from taking effect[vi]

667,680—Number of Missouri voters that rejected the health care law’s individual mandate, supporting a ballot referendum objecting to the federal law by a 71%-29% margin[vii]

500,000—Individuals with pre-existing conditions who could be denied coverage due to under-funding of the law’s high-risk pool program, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)[viii]

40,000,000—Firms subject to the health law’s new 1099 reporting requirements, which the National Federation of Independent Business called a “tremendous new paperwork compliance burden”[ix]

9—Regulations released to date that will increase premium costs for individuals and employers, according to the Administration’s own estimates[x]

$2,500—Premium reduction promised by candidate Obama “by the end of my first term as President”[xi]

750,000—Reduction in the American labor force due to provisions in the law that “will effectively increase marginal tax rates, which will also discourage work,” according to the CBO[xii]

$310,800,000,000—Projected increase in health care costs as a direct result of the legislation, according to the Administration’s own actuaries[xiii]

7,400,000—Reduction in Medicare Advantage enrollment as a result of the health care law, resulting in a loss of choice for seniors and millions of beneficiaries losing their current health plan[xiv]

51%—Percentage of American workers who will lose their current health coverage by 2013, according to the Administration’s own estimates[xv]

0—Public hearings held before President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick—an advocate of health care rationing—to head an agency that “finances health care for one in three Americans” and spends $800 billion annually[xvi]

Even though we have seen only a few of the law’s initial provisions take effect, the impact can already be felt by American families and businesses, who face higher costs, economic uncertainty, and loss of their current coverage. How much longer will these ill effects persist before the President and Democrats in Congress admit that their legislation will harm, not help, the American people?

 

[i] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), P.L. 111-148

[ii] Includes 52 separate proposed rules, interim final rules, requests for information, notices, and other related regulatory actions related to PPACA released by federal agencies or published in the Federal Register between March 23, 2010 (the date of enactment) and September 17, 2010. Spreadsheet with citations and page counts available upon request.

[iii] Refers to interim final rules published without public scrutiny or comment prior to taking effect. Ibid.

[iv] Four missed deadlines are noted in “White House Misses Early Deadlines in ObamaCare Implementation” by Jonathan Strong, June 2, 2010, http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/02/white-house-misses-early-deadlines-in-implementing-obamacare/. In addition, the Administration failed to implement provisions of Section 1101 creating new high-risk pools within 90 days of enactment (i.e. June 21, 2010), as required under the statute.

[v] Spreadsheet with additional details available upon request

[vi] “Missouri to Vote on Health Law” by Kevin Sack, New York Times August 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/policy/01missouri.html

[vii] Missouri Secretary of State’s office, Proposition C results from August 3, 2010 primary election, http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrmaps/20100803/ballot_Issue_map.asp?eid=283&oTypeID=20&Wednesday,%20August%2004,%202010

[viii] Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Honorable Mike Enzi regarding high-risk pool funding, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11572/06-21-High-Risk_Insurance_Pools.pdf

[ix] National Taxpayer Advocate, Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 2011 Objectives, June 30, 2010, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/nta2011objectivesfinal.pdf, pp. 9-13; National Federation of Independent Business release, July 25, 2010, http://www.nfib.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=e8uuuI20Cbs%3d&tabid=1083

[x] Administration regulations whose economic impact analyses assumed an increase in health insurance premiums (whether the regulations quantified those increases or not) included those on coverage of dependent children under age 26, published in Federal Register May 13, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-11391.pdf; coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, annual and lifetime limits, rescissions, designation of primary care providers, designation of pediatrician as primary care providers, patient access to obstetrical and gynecological care, and coverage of emergency services, all published in Federal Register June 28, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-15278.pdf; and coverage of preventive services, published in Federal Register July 19, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17242.pdf.

[xi] Obama for America campaign document, “Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan,” http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf; “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Debate” by Kevin Sack, New York Times July 23, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?ei=5124&en=59763b2937c15bd3&ex=1374552000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print

[xii] Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update,” August 2010, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf Box 2-1, Effects of Recent Health Care Legislation on Labor Markets, pp. 66-67. CBO estimated a labor force reduction of “roughly half a percent.” The 750,000 figure is based on current Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicating more than 150 million Americans in the workforce.

[xiii] Richard Foster, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Estimate of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” as amended, April 22, 2010, http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Interim final rule by Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services regarding grandfathered health insurance status, released June 14, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14488.pdf, Table 3, p. 34553

[xvi] “New Health Official Faces Hostility in the Senate” by Robert Pear, New York Times July 27, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us/politics/27berwick.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimeshealth; CMS Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Justification, http://www.cms.gov/PerformanceBudget/Downloads/CMSFY10CJ.pdf, p. 2; “Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” An Interview with Dr. Donald Berwick, Biotechnology Healthcare June 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799075/pdf/bth06_2p035.pdf

Health Care “Reform” Implementation By the Numbers

More than four months after enactment of Democrats’ new health care law,[i] a look at the first stages of its implementation reveals how the legislation falls short with respect to costs, premiums, preserving Americans’ existing coverage, and providing full transparency and accountability:

3,833—Pages of regulations issued on the health care law through July 31, 2010[ii]

11—Number of final regulations not subjected to public scrutiny before taking effect[iii]

5—Missed implementation deadlines to date[iv]

14—Unanswered letters from House and Senate Republicans to the Administration on the health law[v]

22—States that have joined legal actions to block all or part of the law from taking effect[vi]

667,680—Number of Missouri voters that rejected the health care law’s individual mandate, supporting a ballot referendum objecting to the federal law by a 71%-29% margin[vii]

500,000—Individuals with pre-existing conditions who could be denied coverage due to under-funding of the law’s high-risk pool program, according to the Congressional Budget Office[viii]

40,000,000—Firms subject to what the National Federation of Independent Business called a “tremendous new paperwork compliance burden for small business” included in the health law[ix]

9—Regulations released to date that will increase premium costs for individuals and employers, according to the Administration’s own estimates[x]

$2,500—Premium reduction promised by candidate Obama “by the end of my first term as President”[xi]

$115,000,000,000—Increase in federal discretionary spending as a result of the law, despite not being included in official cost estimates prior to its passage[xii]

$310,800,000,000—Projected increase in health care costs as a direct result of the legislation, according to the Administration’s own actuaries[xiii]

7,400,000—Reduction in Medicare Advantage enrollment as a result of the health care law, resulting in a loss of choice for seniors and millions of beneficiaries losing their current health plan[xiv]

51%—Percentage of American workers who will lose their current health coverage by 2013, according to the Administration’s own estimates[xv]

0—Public hearings held before President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick—an advocate of health care rationing—to head an agency that “finances health care for one in three Americans” and spends $800 billion annually[xvi]

Even though we have seen only a few of the law’s initial provisions take effect, the impact can already be felt by American families and businesses, who face higher costs, economic uncertainty, and loss of their current coverage. How much longer will these ill effects persist before the President and Democrats in Congress admit that their legislation will harm, not help, the American people?

 

[i] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148

[ii] Includes 52 separate proposed rules, interim final rules, requests for information, notices, and other related regulatory actions related to PPACA released by federal agencies or published in the Federal Register between March 23, 2010 (the date of enactment) and July 31, 2010. Spreadsheet with citations and page counts available upon request.

[iii] Refers to interim final rules published without public scrutiny or comment prior to taking effect. Ibid.

[iv] Four missed deadlines are noted in “White House Misses Early Deadlines in ObamaCare Implementation” by Jonathan Strong, June 2, 2010, http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/02/white-house-misses-early-deadlines-in-implementing-obamacare/. In addition, the Administration failed to implement provisions of Section 1101 creating new high-risk pools within 90 days of enactment (i.e. June 21, 2010), as required under the statute.

[v] Spreadsheet with additional details available upon request

[vi] “Missouri to Vote on Health Law” by Kevin Sack, New York Times August 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/policy/01missouri.html

[vii] Missouri Secretary of State’s office, Proposition C results from August 3, 2010 primary election, http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrmaps/20100803/ballot_Issue_map.asp?eid=283&oTypeID=20&Wednesday,%20August%2004,%202010

[viii] Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Honorable Mike Enzi regarding high-risk pool funding, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11572/06-21-High-Risk_Insurance_Pools.pdf

[ix] National Taxpayer Advocate, Report to Congress: Fiscal Year 2011 Objectives, June 30, 2010, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/nta2011objectivesfinal.pdf, pp. 9-13; National Federation of Independent Business release, July 25, 2010, http://www.nfib.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=e8uuuI20Cbs%3d&tabid=1083

[x] Administration regulations whose economic impact analyses assumed an increase in health insurance premiums (whether the regulations quantified those increases or not) included those on coverage of dependent children under age 26, published in Federal Register May 13, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-11391.pdf; coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, annual and lifetime limits, rescissions, designation of primary care providers, designation of pediatrician as primary care providers, patient access to obstetrical and gynecological care, and coverage of emergency services, all published in Federal Register June 28, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-15278.pdf; and coverage of preventive services, published in Federal Register July 19, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17242.pdf.

[xi] Obama for America campaign document, “Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan,” http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf; “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Debate” by Kevin Sack, New York Times July 23, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?ei=5124&en=59763b2937c15bd3&ex=1374552000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print

[xii] Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Honorable Jerry Lewis regarding the effects of H.R. 3590, May 11, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf

[xiii] Richard Foster, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Estimated Financial Effects of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” as amended, April 22, 2010, http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Interim final rule by Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services regarding grandfathered health insurance status, released June 14, 2010, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14488.pdf, Table 3, p. 34553

[xvi] “New Health Official Faces Hostility in the Senate” by Robert Pear, New York Times July 27, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us/politics/27berwick.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimeshealth; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Justification, http://www.cms.gov/PerformanceBudget/Downloads/CMSFY10CJ.pdf, p. 2; “Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” An Interview with Dr. Donald Berwick, Biotechnology Healthcare June 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799075/pdf/bth06_2p035.pdf

Health “Reform” By the Numbers: $1,200,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000,000

Spending in Senate health care and reconciliation bills during Fiscal Years 2010-2019, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates: $940 billion in health insurance subsidies, $93.9 billion in other mandatory health spending included in H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate, $50.3 billion in other mandatory health spending in H.R. 4872 (reconciliation measure), $41.6 billion in mandatory education spending in H.R. 4872, and at least $70 billion in discretionary spending in H.R. 3590.*

*Note that the above figures do NOT include the first ten years of full implementation (i.e. 2014-2023), where spending would be much higher – at least $2.3 trillion.  Note also that the Senate Budget Committee has released an analysis showing discretionary appropriations under H.R. 3590 could total as much as $114 billion.

 

Total Spending
Subsidies 940
Other mandatory spending in Senate HC bill 93.9
Other mandatory HC spending in recon bill 50.3
Mandatory education spending in recon bill 41.6
Discretionary spending in Senate HC bill 70
TOTAL 1195.8

Health “Reform” By the Numbers: $6,000,000 and $2,000,000

$6,000,000

Amount of the latest advertising spree by “Big Pharma” as a result of their “rock-solid deal” negotiated with Democrats being upheld in the Administration’s latest round of backroom dealing.

$2,000,000

Severance package being paid to David Axelrod from his former advertising firm.  “Big Pharma” just so happened to choose Axelrod’s old firm to fund their advertising campaign, meaning the pharmaceutical industry is helping to fund a seven-figure payment to a White House senior advisor.

Health “Reform” By the Numbers: 56%

56%

Requested 2009 rate increase by Michigan Blue Cross/Blue Shield, according to an Administration report; Senate Democrats gave the same insurance company a “backroom deal” (Section 10905(c), page 2394) that exempts Michigan Blue Cross/Blue Shield from the new tax on all other insurance companies.