Not to Belabor the Point...

But this Senate Health bill is just godawful.

CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.

...

So the bill will increase costs but it will then disguise those costs by transferring them to taxpayers from individuals. Higher costs can be conjured away because they're suddenly on the government balance sheet. The Reid bill's $371.9 billion in new health taxes are also apparently not a new cost because they can be passed along to consumers, or perhaps will be hidden in lost wages.

...

Moreover, CBO is almost certainly underestimating the cost increases. Based on its county-by-county actuarial data, the insurer WellPoint has calculated that Mr. Baucus's bill would cause some premiums to triple in the individual market. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association came to similar conclusions.

One reason is community rating, which forces insurers to charge nearly uniform rates regardless of customer health status or habits

...

In a 2008 paper in the peer-reviewed Forum for Health Economics and Policy, [economists] found that state community rating laws raise premiums in the individual market by 20.9% to 33.1% for families and 10.2% to 17.1% for singles. In New Jersey, which also requires insurers to accept all comers (so-called guaranteed issue), premiums increased by as much as 227%.

If only we could come up with a real plan that actually reduces costs!

According to CBO, the relatively modest House GOP bill would actually reduce premiums by 5% to 8% in the individual market in 2016, and by 7% to 10% for small businesses. The GOP reforms would also do so without imposing huge new taxes.

Health Bill's Medicare Cuts are Wishful Thinking

The Democrat Health Plan now working its way to the Senate is being marketed as deficit reducing, despite its $1.2 trillion price tag. The plan will be paid for by increased taxes and reduced Medicare payments.

Specifically, the plan calls for $426 billion in spending cuts and $572 billion in taxes, and is projected to net a $104 billion deficit reduction over 10 years.

The proposed cuts are likely to be short lived, as Congress has a history of proposing Medicare spending cuts, then abandoning them as medical interest groups turn up the heat.

Under both Democrats and Republicans, Congress repeatedly has waived curbs it has tried to place on spending. It has given back other savings from the 1997 law to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and other providers, most notably in 1999. More recently, Congress has twice switched off a cost-saving trigger that was contained in a 2003 bill establishing a Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Congress also frequently has waived budget resolution limits, as well as pay-as-you-go rules requiring offsets for tax cuts and entitlement spending.

Since 1997, Congress has passed five Medicare spending cuts, only to repeal all five shortly after they went into effect.

A plan that cuts Medicare spending by half a trillion dollars is wishful thinking. Do not be fooled.