Public Option, where do you stand?

[Parts Unknown]

---

Members don't see this ad.

But how does this inspire your steadfast faith that they can accurately project future costs now?

If you recall, I'm not the one with steadfast faith in cost projections. You're the one who was trumpeting the Office of the Actuary's predictions regarding H.R. 3962, while I was the one expressing reasonable doubt regarding their accuracy. Now the CBO is saying some things you don't necessarily like, and all of a sudden there are misgivings. You can't have it both ways.

As for the senate bill, I dont think its been released yet so we can't really judge it.

The latest incarnation was released on Wednesday.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Yes, absolutely

Well, there you have it, folks. The end of Western civilization is nigh. You heard it here first from 7starmantis in the pre-allopathic forum.

 

[7starmantis]

Well, there you have it, folks. The end of Western civilization is nigh. You heard it here first from 7starmantis in the pre-allopathic forum.

I see you enjoy trying to point out elementary "logical fallacies" in other's posts. Then you post something as riddled with fallacious logic and fantastical assumptions?

Putting words into my mouth to try to make some lame attempt at either an appeal to emotion or ad hominem attack is not only fruitless but just weak. (see I can vomit up basic logic terms as well).

Research these "laws" you speak of when it comes to budgeting and then take a gander at the federal government's record of holding itself accountable to budgeting "laws" as you say it. The problem isn't necessarily the idea but the reality that once you give up some aspect of freedom and decision making ability or "right" to the federal government you loose the ability to oversee the operation of said issue. When you pass ambiguous and limitless bills allowing a government or elected official to make future decisions you open yourself up for corruption and mismanagement. Thats why the "libertarian" or democratic ideals work so well. Our country was set up to have states make more of these decisions than the federal government for that very reason.

Bottom line is the difference in mentality between who should be responsible for our citizens. There is a major difference in thinking that is causing all these issues. There is a thinking that believes the federal government should nurture and care for citizens and another school of thought that says each individual should be completely responsible for themselves and the federal government is simply a small and rarely used "safety net". These ideology conflicts are really what the whole issue boils down to. That is aside from the actual logistical arguments about the management of these large new bureaucracies. Lets not forget we have quadrupled the national debt in less than a year and are reaching the legal limit and being threaten about loosing our AAA status as a country. We have over 10% unemployment and are involved in wars (excuse me, overseas contingencies) that are furthering our debt. We can't make rash decisions on something as huge as 1/4 our economy.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I see you enjoy trying to point out elementary "logical fallacies" in other's posts. Then you post something as riddled with fallacious logic and fantastical assumptions?

You know, this would be a lot more fun if you wouldn't play directly into my hands.

 

[7starmantis]

You know, this would be a lot more fun if you wouldn't play directly into my hands.

So ya....back to the actual thread. 🙄

 

[randombetch]

Taxes proposed to pay for the public option:

1. 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 (individuals) / $23,000 (families). Amounts are indexed for inflation by CPI-U + 1% - begins in 2013 - $149 B tax increase
2. Additional 0.5% Medicare (Hospital Insurance) tax on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) - begins in 2013 - $54 B tax increase
3. Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs - begins in 2010 - $22 B tax increase
4. Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices - begins in 2010 - $19 B tax increase
5. Cut in half (to $500K) the amount of an executive's compensation that a health plan can deduct from its corporate income taxes - begins in 2013 - $600 million tax increase
6. Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures - begins for surgery in 2010 - $6 B tax increase!

 

[Parts Unknown]

Taxes proposed to pay for the public option:

This is an example of just how deeply you don't understand the issue (and you're about the third person on this thread to openly make this very mistake).

The proposed taxes you just listed are not aimed at paying for the public option, they are aimed at paying for the health reform bill at large. The CBO estimates that the House's public option will require $2 billion in seed money to set up, after which it will be premium-funded and therefore revenue neutral.

The two big revenue sinks in the bill are health insurance subsidies for the poor and Medicaid expansion. Those are what the taxes are trying to cover.

 

[7starmantis]

This is an example of just how deeply you don't understand the issue (and you're about the third person on this thread to openly make this very mistake).

The proposed taxes you just listed are not aimed at paying for the public option, they are aimed at paying for the health reform bill at large. The CBO estimates that the House's public option will require $2 billion in seed money to set up, after which it will be premium-funded and therefore revenue neutral.

The two big revenue sinks in the bill are health insurance subsidies for the poor and Medicaid expansion. Those are what the taxes are trying to cover.

While this is true (you left out burdens on small business) taxes are being increased which is I think the real heart of the tax issue.

 

[Parts Unknown]

taxes are being increased which is I think the real heart of the tax issue.

This simply reflects the conservative sensibility of PAYGO, which forces hard choices regarding taxation over the expediency of deficits. In other words, the opposite of what happened from 2003-2007, when taxes were cut with no commensurate spending restraint.

 

[chessknt]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13840553 (originally from Washington post, cant find it on their site atm).

Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" -- not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion -- $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion.
But this depends on two big gambles. Will future Congresses actually impose the assumed $420 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs? They never have.
And will this Congress enact the excise tax on high-premium insurance policies (the so-called Cadillac plans) included in Reid's bill? Obama has never endorsed them and House Democrats -- reacting to union pressure -- turned them down in favor of a surtax on millionaires' income.

There is a lot of funding/bureaucracy issues going on for so little reform. This would be worth fighting and struggling over if it actually did something to save our rapidly inflating costs. Like it says in the article, this is about an expansion of services to the uninsured. While it is great that our nation has finally decided to get around to this, we have an economic responsibility (ESPECIALLY now) to stop entitlement spending and to fix the gaping economic cancer that is healthcare. If they wont do it, who will and how long will we have to wait until its done?

 

[bigal40]

This simply reflects the conservative sensibility of PAYGO, which forces hard choices regarding taxation over the expediency of deficits. In other words, the opposite of what happened from 2003-2007, when taxes were cut with no commensurate spending restraint.

mmm, I love it, more liberals resorting the their old stand-by, Bush attacks.

What is better in your opinion, cutting taxes while keeping spending the same, or increasing taxes while increasing spending?

 

[Parts Unknown]

mmm, I love it, more liberals resorting the their old stand-by, Bush attacks.

I think history will back me up that after PAYGO expired in 2002 there was a round of tax cuts followed by sizable increases in deficit spending. In 2007 PAYGO was reestablished. No attacks, just the dry knife of what really did happen in Washington during that four year period.

What is better in your opinion, cutting taxes while keeping spending the same, or increasing taxes while increasing spending?

Depends on what moment in history we are talking about. Right now I would support tax increases with reduced spending (in direct opposition to the stoking the beast phenomenon), with the goal of achieving a balanced budget by 2020. Not too quickly, though. I think hiring needs to pick up before we can start fixing the fiscal roof.

You call me liberal because I disagree with you, but in person I am a born and bred conservative, dating from the era before the party was taken over by fundamentalists and Gordon Gekko wannabes. Like I said to chessknt87 earlier, let's not pretend we really know each other.

 

[bigal40]

I think history will back me up that after PAYGO expired in 2002 there was a round of tax cuts followed by sizable increases in deficit spending. In 2007 PAYGO was reestablished. No attacks, just the dry knife of what really did happen in Washington during that four year period.



Depends on what moment in history we are talking about. Right now I would support tax increases with reduced spending (in direct opposition to the stoking the beast phenomenon), with the goal of achieving a balanced budget by 2020.

You call me liberal because I disagree with you, but in person I am a born and bred conservative, dating from the era before the party was taken over by fundamentalists and Gordon Gekko wannabes. Like I said to chessknt87 earlier, let's not pretend we really know each other.

Your comment is completley unrelated to the topic of the public option, so it really is you just attacking Bush.

I don't know you or pretend to know you (nor do I want to know you), I called you a liberal because you have liberal view on the issues.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Your comment is completley unrelated to the topic of the public option,

I was merely addressing concerns raised by randombetch and 7starmantis.

I don't know you or pretend to know you (nor do I want to know you), I called you a liberal because you have liberal view on the issues.

I'm just the devil's advocate, big guy. If you don't like people questioning your views then perhaps you should move back to France.

 

[randombetch]

This is an example of just how deeply you don't understand the issue (and you're about the third person on this thread to openly make this very mistake).

The proposed taxes you just listed are not aimed at paying for the public option, they are aimed at paying for the health reform bill at large. The CBO estimates that the House's public option will require $2 billion in seed money to set up, after which it will be premium-funded and therefore revenue neutral.

The two big revenue sinks in the bill are health insurance subsidies for the poor and Medicaid expansion. Those are what the taxes are trying to cover.

And this matters because ___? Bottom line: these taxes will be enacted, deadweight loss will ensue.

 

[randombetch]

I was merely addressing concerns raised by randombetch and 7starmantis.



I'm just the devil's advocate, big guy. If you don't like people questioning your views then perhaps you should move back to France.

And by playing the devil's advocte, you're being liberal about this issue. Don't be a dumb***.

 

[7starmantis]

Right now I would support tax increases with reduced spending (in direct opposition to the stoking the beast phenomenon), with the goal of achieving a balanced budget by 2020. Not too quickly, though. I think hiring needs to pick up before we can start fixing the fiscal roof.

How do you justify supporting the proposed bill with this statement? How does the proposed bill (senate or house bill) fulfill this ideology for you?

 

[HappySlappy]

How do you justify supporting the proposed bill with this statement? How does the proposed bill (senate or house bill) fulfill this ideology for you?

It fulfills the ideology because both bills not only do not add to our deficit (at least in the long run), they even help reduce it. Within a 10 year period the Senate bill is expected to reduce our deficit by $103 billion. If you don't believe this, which has been projected by the CBO (NONpartisan committee), then I don't know what you believe exactly or what exactly it will take for you to believe anything? The Republican plan that was proposed recently was actually going to add to the federal deficit according to the CBO, and did nothing really to control costs, so again the Democrat's bills still seem to be the best options for me. I have yet to hear of a better, "cost-effective" solution from the opposition, but we all at least agree something needs to be done right? Still waiting for an idea (I'm not opposed to other ideas)....

And again, the house bill taxes those that continue to be UNinsured (when it's already affordable and there are subsidies what's the excuse to be uninsured now) and those making over $200,000 (5.4% of their income). The Senate bill taxes cadillace health care plans (excluding cadillac health care plans that cover workers in risky jobs like coal miners), those making $200,000 and up 1.45% of their income (over $250,000 get taxed 1.9% of their income), cosmetic procedures, and medical equipment (if you think that's wrong, I may agree, but I believe it's offset by the increase in revenue by more equipment being sold to cover all the newly insured). Far from everyone or your average Joe is being taxed for this. 1.45-1.95% isn't THAT huge of a deal for someone making $200,000 and up to pay, and I would gladly pay that out of my checkbook to make sure 94-96% of Americans have good health insurance.

 

[7starmantis]

Good post. A couple of general ideology problems I have with your post and then I’ll get into a few specifics. 1.) I don’t know that I can agree “decreased spending” and “do not add to the deficit in the long run” are synonymous (or even “reducing the deficit”). There are some very real differences (and many possible outcomes) not the least of which is the terms “long run” which always seems hard to predict for some reason. 2.) I don’t agree that doing something is better than nothing, especially in this case. We can all agree that we haven’t exactly had a serious, robust, and inclusive discussion of the issues and possible solutions; not only among Washington, but the people of this nation. There is a lot to loose and less to gain, we need to make the right choice, not the “better of two evils”.

If you don't believe this, which has been projected by the CBO (NONpartisan committee), then I don't know what you believe exactly or what exactly it will take for you to believe anything?

My problems with the CBO.
Bruce Vladeck

Put most simply, the CBO’s track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures. Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit -— by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBO’s estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. That’s right: In the BBA’s first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected.

These mistakes arise neither from a hidden partisan agenda nor a shortage of competence or commitment. The CBO’s reputation for scrupulousness, thoroughness, and nonpartisanship is well-deserved. But the very processes in which it is asked to engage, and the ways in which its results are used, make serious misjudgments almost inevitable.

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Of course, a moment's reflection would lead one to realize that the CBO's guess that the proposal would save $2 billion is about as worthless as an estimate that a loaf of bread will cost $5.65 in 2019, or a gallon of gasoline $4.73. Indeed, the CBO admits as much, stating that it actually believed the proposal would save nothing, but "there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized." … And the media needs to stop reporting CBO reports as though they reflect the real costs of reform

Maggie Mahar

When I read Elmendorf’s testimony suggesting that the bill wouldn’t bend the trajectory of federal health spending, I couldn’t help but wonder: Did he understand how the proposals in the 1,018 page bill dove-tailed with the excellent recommendations that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) has made in recent years? Has Elmendorf read the lengthy MedPac reports?

Frank Pasquale

Neverthless, Vladeck is right to argue that “instead of treating CBO estimates like the Ten Commandments, we should treat them like the informed wild guesses they actually are.”

It seems experts on both sides of the isle don’t trust the CBO. That’s good enough for me. What would it take for me to believe? How about a non-bloated, earmarked, pet project bill that is shown to the American people before votes and that is written in a way that defines its intent. There are 65 instances of the words "such sums as may be necessary" in the senate bill. That’s supposed to garner confidence and trust? Reid leaves out the $200 billion “doctor fix” in his numbers, and doesn’t cover the deficit reduction logically. Its going to lower it by $130 billion which means they have to collect $130 billion more than they pay out, that takes the cost to nearly $1 trillion right there. Its just shoddy work and reeks of corruption and dark alley deals. Where is the transparency we were promised? All of this and the bill still leaves over 18 million Americans without any coverage.

The Republican plan that was proposed recently was actually going to add to the federal deficit according to the CBO, and did nothing really to control costs, so again the Democrat's bills still seem to be the best options for me. I have yet to hear of a better, "cost-effective" solution from the opposition, but we all at least agree something needs to be done right? Still waiting for an idea (I'm not opposed to other ideas)....

No. I don’t agree that “at least something needs to be done”. I agree something needs to be done very badly, but there is a lot to loose if done wrong. We need to right solution, not the quickest solution.

And again, the house bill taxes those that continue to be UNinsured (when it's already affordable and there are subsidies what's the excuse to be uninsured now) and those making over $200,000 (5.4% of their income). The Senate bill taxes cadillace health care plans (excluding cadillac health care plans that cover workers in risky jobs like coal miners), those making $200,000 and up 1.45% of their income (over $250,000 get taxed 1.9% of their income), cosmetic procedures, and medical equipment (if you think that's wrong, I may agree, but I believe it's offset by the increase in revenue by more equipment being sold to cover all the newly insured). Far from everyone or your average Joe is being taxed for this. 1.45-1.95% isn't THAT huge of a deal for someone making $200,000 and up to pay, and I would gladly pay that out of my checkbook to make sure 94-96% of Americans have good health insurance.

Ok, not to get too personal but I haven’t had insurance for like 8 years until recently. I couldn’t afford it and certainly couldn’t have afforded the fine for not affording it. Oh, I didn’t qualify for “subsidies” not that I would have used them anyway. That being said, I never once expected anyone else but myself to provide insurance for me and my wife. I wonder if the senator’s healthcare plans are counted as “Cadillac plans”? $200K is not as much money as it used to be, especially when we start taking out 5% here and there. I don’t have a problem helping others and paying out of the money I’ll make as a doctor and I don’t have a problem with you doing it either. I have a problem bringing in the government and forcing people to do it. We can raise the massive amounts we did after 9/11 but we can’t take care of our own uninsured? Shame on us.

Have we not considered that the fine for not having insurance is cheaper than purchasing insurance? When the majority of people who don’t want insurance simply pay the fine until something catastrophic happens and then get the public plan, we still pay for the most expensive care. Don’t forget we have now made it illegal to refuse those people insurance, so all of us once again pick up the tab for their poor decision making and pay for their expensive and long term care when they didn’t contribute (equally) their whole life.

Just too many terrible ideas in these bills. However its nice to see that $100 million can still buy you a vote.

 

[HappySlappy]

Good post. A couple of general ideology problems I have with your post and then I’ll get into a few specifics. 1.) I don’t know that I can agree “decreased spending” and “do not add to the deficit in the long run” are synonymous (or even “reducing the deficit”). There are some very real differences (and many possible outcomes) not the least of which is the terms “long run” which always seems hard to predict for some reason. 2.) I don’t agree that doing something is better than nothing, especially in this case. We can all agree that we haven’t exactly had a serious, robust, and inclusive discussion of the issues and possible solutions; not only among Washington, but the people of this nation. There is a lot to loose and less to gain, we need to make the right choice, not the “better of two evils”.


My problems with the CBO.
Bruce Vladeck

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost


Maggie Mahar


Frank Pasquale



It seems experts on both sides of the isle don’t trust the CBO. That’s good enough for me. What would it take for me to believe? How about a non-bloated, earmarked, pet project bill that is shown to the American people before votes and that is written in a way that defines its intent. There are 65 instances of the words "such sums as may be necessary" in the senate bill. That’s supposed to garner confidence and trust? Reid leaves out the $200 billion “doctor fix” in his numbers, and doesn’t cover the deficit reduction logically. Its going to lower it by $130 billion which means they have to collect $130 billion more than they pay out, that takes the cost to nearly $1 trillion right there. Its just shoddy work and reeks of corruption and dark alley deals. Where is the transparency we were promised? All of this and the bill still leaves over 18 million Americans without any coverage.


No. I don’t agree that “at least something needs to be done”. I agree something needs to be done very badly, but there is a lot to loose if done wrong. We need to right solution, not the quickest solution.



Ok, not to get too personal but I haven’t had insurance for like 8 years until recently. I couldn’t afford it and certainly couldn’t have afforded the fine for not affording it. Oh, I didn’t qualify for “subsidies” not that I would have used them anyway. That being said, I never once expected anyone else but myself to provide insurance for me and my wife. I wonder if the senator’s healthcare plans are counted as “Cadillac plans”? $200K is not as much money as it used to be, especially when we start taking out 5% here and there. I don’t have a problem helping others and paying out of the money I’ll make as a doctor and I don’t have a problem with you doing it either. I have a problem bringing in the government and forcing people to do it. We can raise the massive amounts we did after 9/11 but we can’t take care of our own uninsured? Shame on us.

Have we not considered that the fine for not having insurance is cheaper than purchasing insurance? When the majority of people who don’t want insurance simply pay the fine until something catastrophic happens and then get the public plan, we still pay for the most expensive care. Don’t forget we have now made it illegal to refuse those people insurance, so all of us once again pick up the tab for their poor decision making and pay for their expensive and long term care when they didn’t contribute (equally) their whole life.

Just too many terrible ideas in these bills. However its nice to see that $100 million can still buy you a vote.

Okay, on the CBO issue, I found that quote by Vladeck to be rather interesting. Okay, so he basically said that the CBO overestimated how much we would actually pay for Medicare Plan D, and we ended up actually saving money over the years? Isn't that a good thing? I'd rather someone overestimate how much something is going to cost than underestimate it in terms of bills being brought to action (and again, they are projections, they're not going to be 100% accurate). I guess Medicare Plan D wasn't so bad after all, something Bush did right, I have to give him credit for that (I read an article on what Vladeck was probably basing his info on that basically goes on about how great Med Plan D is going so kudos on that, definitely changed my perspective). And they underestimated how much we would save on Medicare, again, isn't that a good thing as well. It would have been a disaster if they had done the reverse because we would have been in some deep doo-doo, more than we are now?

The doctor fix (Medicare savings/SGR bill, right?) and the health care reform bills are separate, at least to my knowledge (HR 3961 and 3962 respectively), so I don't think there's anything Harry Reid is really hiding? Just because one would pass, doesn't mean the other will. Even then, wouldn't the CBO have to read the bill in its entirety before coming to a conclusion on how much money is being spent/saved?

My problem with "waiting" is this: We've waited SO many years already for health care reform (proposed by Republicans and Democrats before in the past) and it's always been obstructed and defeated (I think it's been 80 years since it was first proposed). When exactly is it going to happen? It may never will if we keep "waiting" for a bipartisan solution every time. I feel we've already compromised too much with these bills, and the conservatives still aren't biting. In all honestly, I feel that the conservatives in power don't really want to bring health care reform of any form to fruition. If someone came up with a plan that saves us more money than the democrat's plan and covers more uninsured, then trust me, I'd be all for it (whether it's from a conservative, or an independent, or a greenparty person, or whatever). But that idea has unfortunately not been proposed, or even attempted to have been proposed, so I choose to support the democrat's idea.

To finish up, yes I sure hope the representatives in Congress are taxed for their "cadillac plans." They'll have a waaaaaay better plan compared to us thanks to the conservatives obstructing any strengthening of the public option.

It's irresponsible to walk around uninsured, especially when it's made affordable after this bill, just like it's irresponsible to drive around without auto-insurance. You don't question why you have to be forced by your state to have auto-insurance, so what's the difference with having health insurance? It's the same principle. When you crash into someone and you're uninsured, the other person has to pay for it, even if it's your fault. When you walk around uninsured and you have to go to the E.R., I doubt you would be able to pay for the hospital bill all on your own, so the responsibility falls on the tax-payers. Do either of those scenarios sound fair to you?

I completely agree that people need to be penalized more for being uninsured after this. If I had it my way, they'd have to pay more for being uninsured than for being insured, but it's a double-edged sword. People are going to complain if you tax them too much, others will complain if you tax them too little. So what are you going to do? I can only hope people will be smart enough to know that it's affordable now (if the bill passes) and will insure themselves for the benefit of their health and future.

 

[jturkel]

The nievite of this thread is adorible.

I would like an insurance policy that pays out more than what I pay into it.

What? That doesn't exist? Well then lets have the government do it.

What? The government can't provide that kind of service without some kind of rationing? Well then lets just not ration it?

What? That will cost more than the government can afford? Well, lets just tax the rich/borrow more/cut reimbursements...etc.

The purpose of insurance is to protect against risk. I pay a premium and the insurance promises to pay in case something bad happens.

Insurance that covers everything is a ponzi scheme. My employer pays 900$ a month for my policy. Giving me that $900 is not an option because then he would have to pay taxes on it. I do not use $900 dollars a month on health insurance because I am relatively healthy. We maybe spend about $1000-2000 per year on health care. If we were buying medications then maybe it would increase to 4 or 5K.

A catastrophic coverage health care plan would cost about 100 dollars for my wife and I. It would cover hospital admissions, major illness, trauma, ER visits (if admission was necessary) etc. I would have to pay the first $5000 and they would pay the rest.

If I had my choice, I would get the catastrophic care plan, and have the $900 dollars put into an HSA where it would build interest. When I would go to the doctor, I could pay the doctor right then and there and make him accountable for what he charged me. If something bad happens then I pay the deductible out of my HSA, once again controlling making my providers accountable.

If I left my job (once again, if I had my way) I could take my policy and HSA with me. That way if my new employer didn't have a health care plan, I could continue to budget and put money into that HSA. Taking personal responsibility for my care.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't want me to have it my way. She doesn't want me to be able to control how my money is spent for my health care. Nancy Pelosi thinks that I should be forced at the point of a gun to buy health care that I don't want or need.

Oh and the "opt out option" that is adorable because the citizens of the state will still have to pay those extra taxes.

Oh and the idea that the public option will not be paid for with taxes is a flat out lie. Some of the big debates in congress are having to do with how the option will be paid for. Some are saying to tax the "cadilllac" insurance plans. Others are saying to tax pharma, and equipment manufactures (which will make things like wheelchairs, walkers, dialysis machines, etc. even more expensive).

Our health care is expensive because that is what our health care costs. We want limitless high tech health care with zero tolerance for physician error. That is expensive. We want highly trained doctors who stay at the forefront of medical science. We want weeks of free ICU care for our eighty year old grandfather who is neurologically devastated and for our babies that are born weeks premature. That kind of care is not available in other countries.

Right now we are being told that we can have the exact same care, except cheaper if we hand over control to the government. News flash, refusing to pay what something costs does not reduce the cost.

👍

Nancy Pelosi needs to be shot.

 

[UAAWolf]

Obama claims the bill will be funded by cutting waste in the current system. This sounds great right?

Guys...lets suppose this were true, after all I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. CUT THE COSTS NOW! PROVE that the money is there now instead of waiting til it's time to fund everything! Is that so illogical and crazy? I think it is...because I mentioned it to some liberal pre-meds at school and they gasped in shock and called me inhumane for doubting the bill 🙁


My other major problem is the fact the bill won't start until after the next election. I REALLY believed Obama actually meant it when he said we must pass this bill now, not a single day can be wasted! People are dying on the streets etc. But apparently it can wait til right after he is re-elected? Come on...

Finally, let's test this plan out on a few states first before we make it national. What's so wrong with that? They've already tried similar gov't run options in mass and hawaii and they've done poorly. Why not let a few states test out the new policies first? What is so wrong with that?


I want reform. I really do. But this is not the way to do it. And please, people who are for this bill, do not call everyone who is against it inhuman or cruel. Reform can be done in many ways and just because you are against this (extremely convoluted) bill does not mean you do not want a change in the healthcare system.

For example...I started saying some facts to my friend and he just stops me and goes.."HEY it's as simple as this- either you want the uninsured to live or you want them to die!!"

 

[Parts Unknown]

And this matters because ___?

It illustrates that you are unqualified to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

 

[Parts Unknown]

How do you justify supporting the proposed bill with this statement? How does the proposed bill (senate or house bill) fulfill this ideology for you?

In my view, this is how things are supposed to work: members of Congress want new spending (on something like health care reform) and they have to either cut spending elsewhere or find ways to pay for it. In that regard it doesn't really "fulfill" anything, it's just much more to my liking than deficit spending.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

 

[7starmantis]

Some good points UAAWolf 👍

Okay, on the CBO issue, I found that quote by Vladeck to be rather interesting. Okay, so he basically said that the CBO overestimated how much we would actually pay for Medicare Plan D, and we ended up actually saving money over the years? Isn't that a good thing? I'd rather someone overestimate how much something is going to cost than underestimate it in terms of bills being brought to action (and again, they are projections, they're not going to be 100% accurate). I guess Medicare Plan D wasn't so bad after all, something Bush did right, I have to give him credit for that (I read an article on what Vladeck was probably basing his info on that basically goes on about how great Med Plan D is going so kudos on that, definitely changed my perspective). And they underestimated how much we would save on Medicare, again, isn't that a good thing as well. It would have been a disaster if they had done the reverse because we would have been in some deep doo-doo, more than we are now?

Wow, ok…um I was afraid of this. First, the CBO is not only wrong by underestimating, its also wrong (much more often) on estimating spending. Second, it is not “a good thing” for the CBO to be wrong (as much as 130% in some cases) whether you like or dislike the outcome. The point is that the CBO cannot effectively or accurately predict much of anything. So to say “the CBO says so” is a poor argument. I know its confusing to see someone post links to articles they don’t agree with, but the point was how experts on both sides of the isle show the CBO to be ineffective at best. I’m not concerned with the politics of it, just the facts. The CBO is not a source worthy of supporting the bills with.

My problem with "waiting" is this: We've waited SO many years already for health care reform (proposed by Republicans and Democrats before in the past) and it's always been obstructed and defeated (I think it's been 80 years since it was first proposed). When exactly is it going to happen? It may never will if we keep "waiting" for a bipartisan solution every time. I feel we've already compromised too much with these bills, and the conservatives still aren't biting. In all honestly, I feel that the conservatives in power don't really want to bring health care reform of any form to fruition. If someone came up with a plan that saves us more money than the democrat's plan and covers more uninsured, then trust me, I'd be all for it (whether it's from a conservative, or an independent, or a greenparty person, or whatever). But that idea has unfortunately not been proposed, or even attempted to have been proposed, so I choose to support the democrat's idea.

First, we don’t have to “wait”, there are some very important and logical actions we could take right now that don’t include a total overhaul of the healthcare system and the creation of thousands of new bureaucracies. Things like purchasing across state lines, tort reform, insurance reforms, HSA’s, etc. We can do some things that will actually help now and still have a robust discussion of the total outcome or actions. It’s falling victim to what I call the “stars align fallacy” to say everything is coming together and so we must act now. The truth is our legislative branch of government is not ruled by the stars, or chance, or mythological gods high atop mountains. We can pass bills at any time under any circumstances whether “everything is coming together” or not. It’s a false sense of urgency that makes hasty actions lead to serious mistakes. Our government works best when we discuss, research, and think before acting.

Your whole premise is still that an “alternative” plan would have to be as big and overhauling as the current bills to be acceptable. Maybe we should refocus our gaze and look at the actual benefit and consequences (including unintended) for each individual action proposed before voting for over 1,000 pages that most in Washington haven’t even read.

To finish up, yes I sure hope the representatives in Congress are taxed for their "cadillac plans." They'll have a waaaaaay better plan compared to us thanks to the conservatives obstructing any strengthening of the public option.

I love your attacks on “the conservatives” which to be correct must include several of your democratic senators. The implication in this post is that congress’ insurance plan would not be better than an unhindered public option. So why wouldn’t congress want on that same plan??

It's irresponsible to walk around uninsured, especially when it's made affordable after this bill, just like it's irresponsible to drive around without auto-insurance. You don't question why you have to be forced by your state to have auto-insurance, so what's the difference with having health insurance? It's the same principle. When you crash into someone and you're uninsured, the other person has to pay for it, even if it's your fault. When you walk around uninsured and you have to go to the E.R., I doubt you would be able to pay for the hospital bill all on your own, so the responsibility falls on the tax-payers. Do either of those scenarios sound fair to you?

No, not at all. The truth is responsibility is not determined by purchasing insurance. Also, I support total freedom even freedom from responsible actions. I don’t think we need to start trying to make laws to make people responsible, that’s why everyone calls these types of ideas the “nanny state”. Responsibility is something to be taught not mandated through the federal government and the prison system.

I do question being forced to purchase auto insurance, but sadly it’s just not a logical comparison. I really can’t believe people are still trying to use that line. Auto insurance is only required to be liability (that means for the other person, not you) while health insurance is for your use. Not to mention that its fallacious to say people can’t pay for their ER bills, I did. You can pay them out and its “responsible” to pay your bills. Its just not true that the taxpayers pick up the tab for everyone who doesn’t have insurance. Just simply not true. You’re saying our taxes pay for indigent care now?

I completely agree that people need to be penalized more for being uninsured after this. If I had it my way, they'd have to pay more for being uninsured than for being insured, but it's a double-edged sword. People are going to complain if you tax them too much, others will complain if you tax them too little. So what are you going to do? I can only hope people will be smart enough to know that it's affordable now (if the bill passes) and will insure themselves for the benefit of their health and future.

Lets not put words in each others mouths, I’m not saying people should be penalized more for being uninsured. That’s laughable. The truth of this issue is liberty and passing laws on how people spend their hard earned money. Also, another incorrect assumption is that “its affordable now (if the bill passes)”. 18 million people will still be uncovered and who are we to tell someone what is “affordable” to them? That interferes with their life choices and makes them place importance on some things while subtracting importance from other things. That’s not our place or the governments place, not at all. To quote Rage; “Freedom? Yeah right”.

In my view, this is how things are supposed to work: members of Congress want new spending (on something like health care reform) and they have to either cut spending elsewhere or find ways to pay for it. In that regard it doesn't really "fulfill" anything, it's just much more to my liking than deficit spending. Is this really so hard to grasp?

Not difficult to grasp, just difficult to believe. Your “view” may be nice and full of warm fuzzys but that’s just not how things actually work. IF they did we wouldn’t have quadrupled the national debt over the last year and wouldn’t be in jeopardy of loosing our AAA status as a country. We can’t pass bills on wishful thinking or blind faith in how we want things to work.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Not difficult to grasp, just difficult to believe. Your "view" may be nice and full of warm fuzzys but that's just not how things actually work.

It's more or less how they worked from 1946 until 1980, and again for a brief period on the 90's. And I'm not sure what warm fuzzys you are referring to. My ideal approach forces politicians and the public to decide what they want and how much they are willing to pay for it. That's an uncomfortable situation to aspire to, not an easy one.

IF they did we wouldn't have quadrupled the national debt over the last year

The debt hasn't quadrupled over the last year.

 

[7starmantis]

The debt hasn't quadrupled over the last year.

You can argue semantics if you like, but it actually has. Problem is regardless of the number of times we have actually doubled the deficit reducing it by $130 billion is still leaving us in a huge gaping whole of a deficit created by Obama himself. I can decrease the deficit by $300 billion if I increase it by $2 trillion first.

:blink: :blink:

source

 

[Parts Unknown]

You can argue semantics if you like,

It's not a semantic argument that deficit, which represents the gap between revenue and outlays for a given period, is not the same as debt, which represents the sum accumulation of said deficits. That, my friend, is just using words correctly.

 

[7starmantis]

It's not a semantic argument that deficit, which represents the gap between revenue and outlays for a given period, is not the same as debt, which represents the sum accumulation of said deficits. That, my friend, is just using words correctly.

Touché. In my haste at trying to type and get out of the house for my run, I mistakenly used the wrong word.

However, that doesn't negate the truth of my point.

 

[Parts Unknown]

However, that doesn't negate the truth of my point.

What, that we've been hemorrhaging red ink to stave off an (almost) unprecedented financial collapse without any scientific idea as to whether it is the right thing to do?

Yes, very insightful.

 

[7starmantis]

What, that we've been hemorrhaging red ink to stave off an (almost) unprecedented financial collapse without any scientific idea as to whether it is the right thing to do?

Yes, very insightful.

lol

Its funny how you have to make personal attacks to agree with me. I'm not going for insightful, on this thread that term gets an awful name. Its just interesting that in the face of this hemorrhage people are still shouting "spend". Not sure politics could be classified as "scientific".

 

[Parts Unknown]

Its funny how you have to make personal attacks to agree with me.

A personal attack would be saying that you are short, androgenous, smelly, and a virgin. I was merely being coy with your ability to state the obvious.

Not sure politics could be classified as "scientific".

I was speaking more of economics, which gives us tantalizing numbers, statistics and theories as foreplay, but then closes the cookie jar via a lack of controlled experimentation. Sigh.

 

[randombetch]

A personal attack would be saying that you are short, androgenous, smelly, and a virgin. I was merely being coy with your ability to state the obvious.

Then it's funny that you have to be coy with his ability to state the obvious to agree with him. What an important difference that is, wouldn't want to confuse "personal attack" with "coyness" because that changes everything, right? 🙄

I was speaking more of economics, which gives us tantalizing numbers, statistics and theories as foreplay, but then closes the cookie jar via a lack of controlled experimentation. Sigh.

Economic arguments are far, far, far more rational than your garbage speculation.

 

[7starmantis]

A personal attack would be saying that you are short, androgenous, smelly, and a virgin. I was merely being coy with your ability to state the obvious.

If only I could redefine words to suit my own needs and then try and hold the world responsible for misusing them. In these threads, the "obvious" needs to be stated. Your still using this as a strawman to avoid the real issue of what was said. 🙄 But you are master of the circular logic, so carry on your majesty. Oh, btw [obvious]physical and personal are not the same thing[/obvious]

I was speaking more of economics, which gives us tantalizing numbers, statistics and theories as foreplay, but then closes the cookie jar via a lack of controlled experimentation. Sigh.

And yet you rely on it to support your points.....hmmm.....should I state the obvious once again?

 

[randombetch]

It illustrates that you are unqualified to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

Oh, so you're saying because I oversimplified where the tax money would be spent, the information I posted is invalid?

This obvious lack of logic illustrates that you are unqualified to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

 

[HappySlappy]

Some good points UAAWolf 👍



Wow, ok…um I was afraid of this. First, the CBO is not only wrong by underestimating, its also wrong (much more often) on estimating spending. Second, it is not “a good thing” for the CBO to be wrong (as much as 130% in some cases) whether you like or dislike the outcome. The point is that the CBO cannot effectively or accurately predict much of anything. So to say “the CBO says so” is a poor argument. I know its confusing to see someone post links to articles they don’t agree with, but the point was how experts on both sides of the isle show the CBO to be ineffective at best. I’m not concerned with the politics of it, just the facts. The CBO is not a source worthy of supporting the bills with.



First, we don’t have to “wait”, there are some very important and logical actions we could take right now that don’t include a total overhaul of the healthcare system and the creation of thousands of new bureaucracies. Things like purchasing across state lines, tort reform, insurance reforms, HSA’s, etc. We can do some things that will actually help now and still have a robust discussion of the total outcome or actions. It’s falling victim to what I call the “stars align fallacy” to say everything is coming together and so we must act now. The truth is our legislative branch of government is not ruled by the stars, or chance, or mythological gods high atop mountains. We can pass bills at any time under any circumstances whether “everything is coming together” or not. It’s a false sense of urgency that makes hasty actions lead to serious mistakes. Our government works best when we discuss, research, and think before acting.

Your whole premise is still that an “alternative” plan would have to be as big and overhauling as the current bills to be acceptable. Maybe we should refocus our gaze and look at the actual benefit and consequences (including unintended) for each individual action proposed before voting for over 1,000 pages that most in Washington haven’t even read.



I love your attacks on “the conservatives” which to be correct must include several of your democratic senators. The implication in this post is that congress’ insurance plan would not be better than an unhindered public option. So why wouldn’t congress want on that same plan??


No, not at all. The truth is responsibility is not determined by purchasing insurance. Also, I support total freedom even freedom from responsible actions. I don’t think we need to start trying to make laws to make people responsible, that’s why everyone calls these types of ideas the “nanny state”. Responsibility is something to be taught not mandated through the federal government and the prison system.

I do question being forced to purchase auto insurance, but sadly it’s just not a logical comparison. I really can’t believe people are still trying to use that line. Auto insurance is only required to be liability (that means for the other person, not you) while health insurance is for your use. Not to mention that its fallacious to say people can’t pay for their ER bills, I did. You can pay them out and its “responsible” to pay your bills. Its just not true that the taxpayers pick up the tab for everyone who doesn’t have insurance. Just simply not true. You’re saying our taxes pay for indigent care now?



Lets not put words in each others mouths, I’m not saying people should be penalized more for being uninsured. That’s laughable. The truth of this issue is liberty and passing laws on how people spend their hard earned money. Also, another incorrect assumption is that “its affordable now (if the bill passes)”. 18 million people will still be uncovered and who are we to tell someone what is “affordable” to them? That interferes with their life choices and makes them place importance on some things while subtracting importance from other things. That’s not our place or the governments place, not at all. To quote Rage; “Freedom? Yeah right”.



Not difficult to grasp, just difficult to believe. Your “view” may be nice and full of warm fuzzys but that’s just not how things actually work. IF they did we wouldn’t have quadrupled the national debt over the last year and wouldn’t be in jeopardy of loosing our AAA status as a country. We can’t pass bills on wishful thinking or blind faith in how we want things to work.

Again, CBO gives "projections," not some kind of Nostradamus prophecy on exactly how much will be spent. I think quite personally I would find them a lot more reliable if they overestimate the negatives and underestimate the positives, and that's what they've been doing according to the Vladeck quote, your own quote. If they overestimated the positives and underestimated the negatives of any proposed bills in the past, then we'd be talking, but so far I think the CBO have been doing their job in at least preparing us for the worst.

Although I'm glad other ideas are finally being proposed, it's already been stated and analyzed that tort reform really isn't going to save us all that much money. When it comes to tort reform, we're kind of just making a big deal out of nothing:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090831_5711.php
(makes up less than 2% of healthcare spending)

If I had to choose between an HSA or nothing at all, I would definitely go for an HSA, however it doesn't go to the root of the issue. It just kind of glosses over a whole pile of crap that is the rise in health insurance premiums (it's risen over 130% in the last 10 years and will only continue to rise). Again, I don't know how it would really cover chronic illnesses or catastrophic illnesses for the record (the account WILL eventually be wiped out if your illness is grave). Also, your essentially telling people with these HSA's that they need to wait until they hit a hospital or till their conditions get to an emergency level. I would prefer total coverage so that these people see the doctor and their conditions are helped or at least delayed rather than for them to wait until they die at a hospital.

Yes, taxpayers will have to pay for these costs somehow if they aren't already doing it. Where else does the money to cover people that cannot pay hospital bills come from? It's going to have to be paid somehow, or eventually, unless you just want hospitals to shut down, or for this just to get added to our state/federal deficits.

Medicaid is being expanded, and subsidies are given to be able to afford health insurance now. Again, no excuse. If you need help to be able to afford it, chances are, it will be given to you.

Obama did not start the deficit, pleaaaaaase. I cannot believe you said that. Your boy Bush did this (remember the Iraq War and the tax breaks). Obama's ADDITION to the deficit (not creation) was needed for the stimulus package. Did you want to go through another Great Depression? Yes, our economy is still crap now, but at the very least it's stabilized.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Oh, so you're saying because I oversimplified where the tax money would be spent, the information I posted is invalid?

You didn't oversimplify, you completely shanked it. There is zero apparent understanding of how the public option as written will be funded, and how it fits into health care reform legislation as a whole. If you have problems with the various proposals to fund reform, that's fine, but I propose a separate thread.

This public option/reform conflation is the same misunderstanding that was displayed by seelee in post #40:

Oh and the idea that the public option will not be paid for with taxes is a flat out lie. Some of the big debates in congress are having to do with how the option will be paid for. Some are saying to tax the "cadilllac" insurance plans. Others are saying to tax pharma, and equipment manufactures (which will make things like wheelchairs, walkers, dialysis machines, etc. even more expensive).

...and possibly by DrJD in post #120 (although I couldn't get him to clarify whether he was saying the public option will cost $1.2 trillion or whether he's referring to the whole bill as a single program):

So now the government comes out with yet another medical program and says it is going to cost "only" 1.2 trillion

 

[Parts Unknown]

If only I could redefine words to suit my own needs

I believe the notion of ad hominem is quite clearly defined, and I challenge you to illustrate one in my earlier post. You'll be left holding only the barest of sarcasm.

Oh, btw [obvious]physical and personal are not the same thing[/obvious]

All that is personal is not physical, but in a derogatory context all that is physical is personal.

hmmm.....should I state the obvious once again?

Go ahead. I'm not going to confuse it with a personal attack.

 

[7starmantis]

If you don't believe this, which has been projected by the CBO (NONpartisan committee), then I don't know what you believe exactly or what exactly it will take for you to believe anything?

Again, CBO gives "projections," not some kind of Nostradamus prophecy on exactly how much will be spent.

We aren't talking about a determined effort to "prepare for the worst" which would be unthinkable in a governmental agency supposed to allow decisions based on facts (or as close as we can get). We are talking about presenting findings that are simply wrong, bad wrong. Thats not reliable no matter how you spin it.

Although I'm glad other ideas are finally being proposed, it's already been stated and analyzed that tort reform really isn't going to save us all that much money. When it comes to tort reform, we're kind of just making a big deal out of nothing:

This is getting tiresome. So you think the only things we should include in a health care reform bill are things that save us money? We shouldn't worry about making changes that only increase quality of care? This is the problem with the current bills by the way.

If I had to choose between an HSA or nothing at all, I would definitely go for an HSA, however it doesn't go to the root of the issue. It just kind of glosses over a whole pile of crap that is the rise in health insurance premiums (it's risen over 130% in the last 10 years and will only continue to rise). Again, I don't know how it would really cover chronic illnesses or catastrophic illnesses for the record (the account WILL eventually be wiped out if your illness is grave). Also, your essentially telling people with these HSA's that they need to wait until they hit a hospital or till their conditions get to an emergency level. I would prefer total coverage so that these people see the doctor and their conditions are helped or at least delayed rather than for them to wait until they die at a hospital.

That gets two smacks, because your not listening. You think the current bills "go to the root of the issue" including "the rise in health insurance premiums"? This is a common fallacy in discussing these huge bills. Your talking like every aspect of every page in every bill must address every issue on every level. Simply not the case and never will be. A collection of changes focused on different areas is the best approach. Every time someone offers an alternative "solution" its shot down because it is not a panacea....nothing is. No one is saying HSA's are the solution to all our problems, but can play a part in solving the bigger issues.

For the record: Regardless of your savings or insurance status, any funds you have WILL be wiped out in the case of catastrophic illness (not just HSA's but savings, retirement, etc). We aren't changing that with the current bills either.

Where do you get that we are saying HSA's are only for emergent care or hospital care? this is ridiculous, HSA's could be used for any and all healthcare purchases including (god forbid) breast cancer screenings, or appointment with nutritionalist for obesity counseling, etc etc etc. C'mon, your being very dishonest in trying to change what people are saying and then smack it down like its stupid.

Yes, taxpayers will have to pay for these costs somehow if they aren't already doing it. Where else does the money to cover people that cannot pay hospital bills come from? It's going to have to be paid somehow, or eventually, unless you just want hospitals to shut down, or for this just to get added to our state/federal deficits.

Ok, too tired to repeat myself more.....just re read the many posts in this and all the other dead horse threads.

Again, no excuse. If you need help to be able to afford it, chances are, it will be given to you.

Unless your one of the 18 million left uncovered by the current bill or someone in my shoes that didn't qualify for assistance but couldn't afford $30 for a date with my wife while in undergrad. I'm not good with "chances are" laws either.

Obama did not start the deficit, pleaaaaaase. I cannot believe you said that. Your boy Bush did this (remember the Iraq War and the tax breaks). Obama's ADDITION to the deficit (not creation) was needed for the stimulus package. Did you want to go through another Great Depression? Yes, our economy is still crap now, but at the very least it's stabilized.

😱 😕
Dood, have you actually read my posts or are you seriously this thick? I didn't say Obama started anything. Seriously, you worry me. I also never said I even liked, voted for, or even heard the name Bush before. Your attempts at twisting words to try and make your points (which lack factual base) is annoying. The stimulus is for a new thread, but lets not ask how much of that money has even been used to "stimulate" or where the thousands of jobs are that were created in districts that dont exists. Thats asinine. Talk about fear mongering! Great Depression? Stabilized? Over 10% unemployment is stable? No more, seriously, no more....I can't take it!

I believe the notion of ad hominem is quite clearly defined, and I challenge you to illustrate one in my earlier post. You'll be left holding only the barest of sarcasm.

Um.... ad hominem is different from redefinition.

 

[just wondering]

so I don't think there's anything Harry Reid is really hiding?

What he is hiding is that it is "deficit neutral" when the taxes start now but the programs dont start till 3 years later. CBO estimates only project ten years. So we have numbers with 10 years of revenue but only 7 years of expeditures. If an company reported numbers this way then theyd be chraged with all kinds of crime.

There are many ways to reduce costs without govenment interferece (Im on the fence about the public option btw) However this bill is crap and is paving the way for single payer government monopoloy. Funny how liberals like to refer to it as single payer instead of monopoly. THis is the wrong way to go. Massuchusetts CHARITY hospitals are suing the state because the state is not paying their bills and this is causing them to go under. I propose that we modify steps taking small steps and seeing how they work. First allow insurrance companies to compete across state lines. THis broke up AT&T and the bell system back in the day. It increased competetion and prices dropped. If that doesnt work put in some tort reform to break up defensive medicine costs. Then expand medicaid or come up with some sort of public option. HOWEVER, you cant force the insurance companies to require certain coverage. They have to be able to set up their own plans to be able to compete. If people dont like it they can choose the government. THis way if they fail it is their own fault not because they were strapped by the government. Fed Ex and UPS survive because they have a better product. However they dont have nearly the regulation hampering them. The government is setting up a system to where they will be the only availible entity and then we will be screwed like Massuchusetts.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Um.... ad hominem is different from redefinition.

I believe you stated that I had redefined personal attack/ad hominem, which I disagree with.

 

[Parts Unknown]

What he is hiding is that it is "deficit neutral" when the taxes start now but the programs dont start till 3 years later. CBO estimates only project ten years. So we have numbers with 10 years of revenue but only 7 years of expeditures.

The CBO report on the House bill is availabe in PDF format here. There is indeed year-by-year breakdown of outlay versus revenue projections.

 

[just wondering]

You are correct that is the house. Which is the more expensive. He was talking about harry reid. Who is in the senete.

 

[Parts Unknown]

You are correct that is the house. Which is the more expensive. He was talking about harry reid. Who is in the senete.

If you can dig up the text of the CBO's report on the Senate bill I'd love to see it.

 

[just wondering]

Heres a graph from the CBO on one of the senete bills (this just illustrates how things are being done in general though). I think this illustrates enought that the meat of the programs dont kick in till 2013 and 2014. Plus Ive seen reports that some stuff doesnt kick in till 2019 and 2020.

 

[HappySlappy]

We aren't talking about a determined effort to "prepare for the worst" which would be unthinkable in a governmental agency supposed to allow decisions based on facts (or as close as we can get). We are talking about presenting findings that are simply wrong, bad wrong. Thats not reliable no matter how you spin it.


This is getting tiresome. So you think the only things we should include in a health care reform bill are things that save us money? We shouldn't worry about making changes that only increase quality of care? This is the problem with the current bills by the way.




That gets two smacks, because your not listening. You think the current bills "go to the root of the issue" including "the rise in health insurance premiums"? This is a common fallacy in discussing these huge bills. Your talking like every aspect of every page in every bill must address every issue on every level. Simply not the case and never will be. A collection of changes focused on different areas is the best approach. Every time someone offers an alternative "solution" its shot down because it is not a panacea....nothing is. No one is saying HSA's are the solution to all our problems, but can play a part in solving the bigger issues.

For the record: Regardless of your savings or insurance status, any funds you have WILL be wiped out in the case of catastrophic illness (not just HSA's but savings, retirement, etc). We aren't changing that with the current bills either.

Where do you get that we are saying HSA's are only for emergent care or hospital care? this is ridiculous, HSA's could be used for any and all healthcare purchases including (god forbid) breast cancer screenings, or appointment with nutritionalist for obesity counseling, etc etc etc. C'mon, your being very dishonest in trying to change what people are saying and then smack it down like its stupid.




Ok, too tired to repeat myself more.....just re read the many posts in this and all the other dead horse threads.


Unless your one of the 18 million left uncovered by the current bill or someone in my shoes that didn't qualify for assistance but couldn't afford $30 for a date with my wife while in undergrad. I'm not good with "chances are" laws either.


😱 😕
Dood, have you actually read my posts or are you seriously this thick? I didn't say Obama started anything. Seriously, you worry me. I also never said I even liked, voted for, or even heard the name Bush before. Your attempts at twisting words to try and make your points (which lack factual base) is annoying. The stimulus is for a new thread, but lets not ask how much of that money has even been used to "stimulate" or where the thousands of jobs are that were created in districts that dont exists. Thats asinine. Talk about fear mongering! Great Depression? Stabilized? Over 10% unemployment is stable? No more, seriously, no more....I can't take it!


Um.... ad hominem is different from redefinition.

Ummmmm, it wasn't fear mongering. We were really about to get to another Depression. You can ask any analyst, read any study. The stimulus and the bailouts (as much as I hate helping corporate crooks) have at least inhibitted that from happening in my opinion regardless of what the unemployment rate is.

Your own quote (I'm implying when you say "deficit created by Obama himself" means that you think Obama created the deficit, I might be interpreting that wrong though......):

Problem is regardless of the number of times we have actually doubled the deficit reducing it by $130 billion is still leaving us in a huge gaping whole of a deficit created by Obama himself

But on to health care reform. I don't see how my points contradicted themselves? I agree, that the CBO statements aren't an exact prophecy of the future (with an exact number of what is going to happen), but I feel their goal is to let us know whether proposed bills will help save or spend money overall. In that aspect, they've been pretty accurate. We haven't gone into a financial meltdown because they've greenlit a bill that they've supposedly told us would save billions of dollars, so they've done a pretty good job in my opinion, and we should believe them when they say this bill will save us $103 billion dollars. If anything your studies have shown that they expect the worst, and the worst that they expect tends to be inaccurate, so hey if saving $103 billion dollars is the worst that can happen, then I'll take it.

Now on to Tort reform. I agree, there needs to be a change in malpractice insurance/suits, but I'm setting priorities here and what's more important to me is that the majority of Americans are covered by health insurance. I think that if your priorities are to take care of doctors first, and then the patients, then it becomes a little warped. Sure, the constant threat of lawsuits kind of forces the majority of us to practice defensive medicine, but it's still medicine nonetheless rather than no medicine at all for these millions of uninsured. What I'm assuming you guys want is caps on how much a person can win in a settlement right? It's okay in theory, but what about when a person is actually harmed by a doctor? I don't think it's fair that a cap is placed in their instance. If caps aren't what you all are for, then how exactly do you propose to bring about Tort reform? And again, let's be honest, are you really holding out on this bill because you're THAT for tort reform?

HSA: Again, I'm not shutting your idea down (so quit being so butt hurt about it), I just think the health care reform plan by the democrats is a better idea. In my opinion, if I'm understanding HSAs correctly, you privately set aside money (or through the government) to cover illnesses. The thing is how would you know how much to save is my first question (because diseases come in various different lengths and expenditures). I also feel that it pretty much encourages people to hold out until they have a pretty serious condition (it becomes kind of a crap shoot on when to actually see a doctor), ultimately because you never know when you might actually need all that money in that piggy bank. Wouldn't you say it's better and easier if they were just insured? Just flat out insuring them makes sense instead of just providing them a government piggy bank or rainy day account. If you really think HSA's can just cover any test in the world, then what's the difference between that and just flat out insuring them?

You're using your own personal example for how you didn't qualify for assistance, but yet health care reform hasn't passed yet? You don't know whether or not you would qualify if it was passed, so I don't feel your personal story applies to this scenario.

 

[Giovanni1s Room]

I'm from Canada; we have "free" health-care and its is pretty darn good to be honest. 'Socialized' medicine works. And no we are not in cahoots with 'em commies.

Here's one way to fund health care reform, build a time machine and travel back eight years and use the money spent on Bush's war with Iraq to give everyone free health coverage (which is a right IMO). Perhaps due to today's economic climate full health care reform may not be able to done, but its only because some republican war criminals decided to hold a grudge and avenge Big Daddy Bush's failed war. Don't blame Obama, once again they sent a black man to clean up a white man's mess.

 

[HappySlappy]

I'm from Canada; we have "free" health-care and its is pretty darn good to be honest. 'Socialized' medicine works. And no we are not in cahoots with 'em commies.

Here's one way to fund health care reform, build a time machine and travel back eight years and use the money spent on Bush's war with Iraq to give everyone free health coverage (which is a right IMO). Perhaps due to today's economic climate full health care reform may not be able to done, but its only because some republican war criminals decided to hold a grudge and avenge Big Daddy Bush's failed war. Don't blame Obama, once again they sent a black man to clean up a white man's mess.

AMEN! Seriously, if my family wouldn't be so far away here in Texas, I would just move to Canada because I believe in their system.

 

[randombetch]

I'm from Canada; we have "free" health-care and its is pretty darn good to be honest. 'Socialized' medicine works. And no we are not in cahoots with 'em commies.

Here's one way to fund health care reform, build a time machine and travel back eight years and use the money spent on Bush's war with Iraq to give everyone free health coverage (which is a right IMO). Perhaps due to today's economic climate full health care reform may not be able to done, but its only because some republican war criminals decided to hold a grudge and avenge Big Daddy Bush's failed war. Don't blame Obama, once again they sent a black man to clean up a white man's mess.

Can you speak for all patients? Have you ever had to have an organ transplant? When you do, tell me about how great Canada's healthcare system is then.

 

[randombetch]

Now on to Tort reform. I agree, there needs to be a change in malpractice insurance/suits, but I'm setting priorities here and what's more important to me is that the majority of Americans are covered by health insurance. I think that if your priorities are to take care of doctors first, and then the patients, then it becomes a little warped. Sure, the constant threat of lawsuits kind of forces the majority of us to practice defensive medicine, but it's still medicine nonetheless rather than no medicine at all for these millions of uninsured. What I'm assuming you guys want is caps on how much a person can win in a settlement right? It's okay in theory, but what about when a person is actually harmed by a doctor? I don't think it's fair that a cap is placed in their instance. If caps aren't what you all are for, then how exactly do you propose to bring about Tort reform? And again, let's be honest, are you really holding out on this bill because you're THAT for tort reform?

You seem to think that either doctors benefit and patients suffer or vice versa. When doctors are better off, the patients become better off. A higher incentive for people to go into medicine leads to better quality doctors, holding the quantity of doctors constant.

Secondly, there are like 12 million out of 350 million who honestly cannot afford health insurance and are not qualified for some other medical aid. The health reform will cost at minimum a trillion dollars. That's $83,000 per uninsured person and an overall decrease in healthcare quality for them. I think they'd be happier if you just gave them the damn $83k. I'm not saying we should do this, I'm saying that even this ******ed transfer of money would be better than the healthcare reform.