The US has the best health care in the world?

[Al68]

You can take the sources with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear. The tax cuts are costing a hell of a lot of money. Maybe they should just let them expire.

CBO predictions purposefully use "static" modeling for their projections instead of "dynamic" modeling. Static modeling underestimates tax revenues at lower tax rates by ignoring the effect of different tax rates on the tax base. This is way off topic, but actual revenues after tax cuts historically greatly exceed CBO projections, even greatly exceeding the revenues actually collected by the previous higher tax rates.

Of course those advocating higher taxes will insist on preferring CBO projections to actual historical data, even after the actual data shows the projections to be way off. Some even still try to convince people that the deficits of the 1980's were caused by tax cuts, despite the fact that actual tax revenues doubled during the 1980's.

 

[mheslep]

People are in a hissy fit over the projected deficits the US is going to run into over the next ten years, but let's not forget where a large chunk of it is coming from (the 2001-2003 tax cuts). Just how much are the tax cuts costing the US government?


You can take the sources with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear. The tax cuts are costing a hell of a lot of money. Maybe they should just let them expire.

They are expiring on the top brackets, in fact effective rates will be increased above the existing levels prior to the '01-'03 tax cuts per the latest budget law. The http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/economy/26deficit.html?hp" people are in a hissy fit about includes the higher taxes. The predicted red section of the chart above - due to Bush tax cuts - will never happen under current law.

...That approach includes the assumption that various changes in tax law enacted since 2001 expire as scheduled, by the end of December 2010, causing a rise in revenues thereafter...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/09-08-Update.pdf

 

[WhoWee]

I've been reading through the "pilot programs" of HR3200. Has anyone found an estimate of how many jobs will be created to oversee this program or Government administrative costs in conjunction with this Bill?

 

[WhoWee]

I think some people should be fired at Social Security.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stimulus-checks-not-boosting-apf-2542694170.html?x=0&.v=2

"3,900 stimulus checks went to prison inmates
Government sent 3,900 economic stimulus checks to prison inmates -- 2,200 got to keep them

* By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer
* On Wednesday August 26, 2009, 9:28 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government sent about 3,900 economic stimulus payments of $250 each this spring to people who were in no position to use the money to help stimulate the economy: prison inmates.

...About $425,000 was incorrectly sent to inmates."

This is just one more example of Government waste. A private insurance company would never put up with this level of incompetence.

 

[Hurkyl]

That works out to what... 0.003% error rate? For the most part, I would be rather content with that level of government incompetence.

 

[WhoWee]

That works out to what... 0.003% error rate? For the most part, I would be rather content with that level of government incompetence.

Look at it another way, assume there are 4 employees who earn $100,000 each that are responsible for "oversight" of this program. The mistake is greater than their cumulative annual salaries.

What other occupation would permit this level of performance? Can you imagine a manager at WalMarts explaining they "misplaced" a $100,000 bank deposit?

I have to wonder if any of the people involved this time had oversight the last time when dead people received checks?

There's nothing funny about this - Government is too big and spending is too free.

I heard an interview earlier that provided some interesting details about PORK in the health care Bill. I'm looking in HR3200 for the $1 billion allocated for walking trails, jungle gyms, etc. I'll post when I find it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Health Reform Fact and Fiction
As Congress considers multiple versions of health reform, misunderstanding and falsehoods have crept into the national debate. Ray Suarez separates fact from fiction

http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2009/08/27/20090827_healthcare.mp3

Again it is stated that there are currently five plans working their way through Congress. Sunday, on Meet the Press, I believe, it was stated that there are six Republican plans alone, all things considered. I would assume that there are popular plans making the rounds, and other plans that don't have much of a following.

 

[WhoWee]

I was thinking about the length of the HR3200 document today - 1,000+ pages.

By comparison, the brokers field guide for United Health Care/Golden Rule including underwriting guidelines with 2 blank pages for notes is only 40 pages total.

The typical brochure outlining all of the details of a comprehensive health insurance plan along with state mandates is typically 20 to 30 pages total.

The State of Ohio revised code pertaining to health insurance is 86 pages long - other states are similar. By the way, Ohio is working on a plan to insure 100,000 additional people with stimulus funds.

The first step in reform should be to standardize coverage mandates across all 50 states. This would eliminate the need for 49 compliance departments at every insurance provider. It would also reduce staffing requirements at all 50 state departments of insurance.

More importantly, it would simplify reform.

 

[mheslep]

Regarding the PBS "Fact and Fiction" piece on the subject of abortion in the health bills:

...You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true...

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?
Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans. ...

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

 

[turbo]

The lies and dirty tricks keep coming. On the heels of the "death panels", a GOP push-poll suggests that a Democratic-designed health care system could examine voter-registration records and selectively deny health care to Republicans. Sick!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090828/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_scare;_ylt=AsVgr0Lyk6sNKzsss7krNF2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFla3FrMzZrBHBvcwM4NwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNnb3BoaW50c2RlbXM-

 

[WhoWee]

The lies and dirty tricks keep coming. On the heels of the "death panels", a GOP push-poll suggests that a Democratic-designed health care system could examine voter-registration records and selectively deny health care to Republicans. Sick!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090828/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_scare;_ylt=AsVgr0Lyk6sNKzsss7krNF2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFla3FrMzZrBHBvcwM4NwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNnb3BoaW50c2RlbXM-

I think "selective care" a complete over-reach, but the prospect of long term enforcement by the IRS doesn't exactly inspire me either.

As I've posted before, we need to remove politics from this process. We also need fix the problems we have (current Government programs and standardization of insurance mandates in all 50 states is a good place to begin) before creating new problems.

 

[Al68]

The first step in reform should be to standardize coverage mandates across all 50 states. This would eliminate the need for 49 compliance departments at every insurance provider.

Just eliminate the state level regulations on insurance that serve to protect the big insurance companies from competition. This is where the federal government could actually use the interstate commerce clause for its intended purpose, instead of as a corrupt excuse for unrelated agendas.

Claiming that more regulation is needed to fix the problems caused by current regulation is preposterous. It's no coincidence that the most regulated consumer product in the country is the one everyone has a problem with.

The problems cited against private insurance companies are problems that would be impossible in a competitive free market. Insurance companies would have to satisfy consumers or be put out of business by their competitors.

True reform would start by eliminating the regulatory barriers to entry into the insurance market by competitors.

 

[mheslep]

Just eliminate the state level regulations on insurance that serve to protect the big insurance companies from competition. This is where the federal government could actually use the interstate commerce clause for its intended purpose, instead of as a corrupt excuse for unrelated agendas.

Great comment.

 

[WhoWee]

Just eliminate the state level regulations on insurance that serve to protect the big insurance companies from competition. This is where the federal government could actually use the interstate commerce clause for its intended purpose, instead of as a corrupt excuse for unrelated agendas.

Claiming that more regulation is needed to fix the problems caused by current regulation is preposterous. It's no coincidence that the most regulated consumer product in the country is the one everyone has a problem with.

The problems cited against private insurance companies are problems that would be impossible in a competitive free market. Insurance companies would have to satisfy consumers or be put out of business by their competitors.

True reform would start by eliminating the regulatory barriers to entry into the insurance market by competitors.

I'm not sure what you were responding to, I said "As I've posted before, we need to remove politics from this process. We also need fix the problems we have (current Government programs and standardization of insurance mandates in all 50 states is a good place to begin) before creating new problems."

I want to standardize coverage requirements across all 50 states. This means level the playing field for all insurance companies to meet a single set of requirements, versus 50 different sets of requirements. The problem now is over-regulation.

 

[Al68]

I'm not sure what you were responding to, I said "As I've posted before, we need to remove politics from this process. We also need fix the problems we have (current Government programs and standardization of insurance mandates in all 50 states is a good place to begin) before creating new problems."

I want to standardize coverage requirements across all 50 states. This means level the playing field for all insurance companies to meet a single set of requirements, versus 50 different sets of requirements. The problem now is over-regulation.

I was referring to the 50 different sets of regulations. And I have no problem with any government defining different standards, as long as private insurance companies are free to offer "standard" plans, non-standard plans, or both as needed to meet consumer demand.

We know what happens to crappy companies that offer crappy products/services in a competitive free market. They don't get to stay in business and convince people to blame the "system" and make new laws further protecting them from competition.

 

[WhoWee]

I was referring to the 50 different sets of regulations. And I have no problem with any government defining different standards, as long as private insurance companies are free to offer "standard" plans, non-standard plans, or both as needed to meet consumer demand.

We know what happens to crappy companies that offer crappy products/services in a competitive free market. They don't get to stay in business and convince people to blame the "system" and make new laws further protecting them from competition.

I think we're in agreement. Currently, each state sets it's own standards. Most of the mandates are reasonable and expected - some are not.

This link will provide insight into the complexity of the situation. Take your time and read through the charts.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2009.pdf

"Why Is the Number of Mandates Growing? Elected representatives find it difficult to oppose any legislation that promises
enhanced care to potentially motivated voters. The sponsors of mandates know this fact of political life. As a result, government
interference in and control of the health care system is steadily increasing. So too is the cost of health insurance.
By the late 1960s, state legislatures had passed only a handful of mandated benefits; today, the Council for Affordable Health
Insurance (CAHI) has identified 2,133 mandated benefits and providers. And more are on their way.
How do state legislators justify their actions? One way is to deny a mandate is a mandate. For example, legislators may claim
that requiring health insurance to cover a type of provider — such as a chiropractor, podiatrist, midwife or naturopath — is
not a mandate because they aren’t requiring insurance to pay for a particular therapy. But that’s a distinction without a difference;
if insurance is required to cover the provider, it must pay for the service provided.

 

[Al68]

I think we're in agreement. Currently, each state sets it's own standards. Most of the mandates are reasonable and expected - some are not.

I wouldn't call any mandate reasonable that restricts the freedom of people to decide for themselves what type of coverage to buy.

I have no problem with insurance that covers midwives, wart removal, pedicures, or anything else. It's outlawing the policies that don't meet the "mandates" that I oppose.

And I agree that over-regulation is the main problem. Just imagine what insurance companies would be like if they had to satisfy consumers to stay in business, like they would have to if over-regulation wasn't keeping competition away.

It amazes me that politicians would actually suggest that the solution to a partial monopoly caused by government regulation is more regulation to create a more complete monopoly.

 

[WhoWee]

This is an informative piece for anyone serious about the topic of health care reform.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProgramRatesStats/Downloads/MedicareMedicaidSummaries2008.pdf

Costs have been increasing.

"Health spending in the United States has grown rapidly over the past few decades. From $27.5 billion in 1960, it grew to $912.6 billion in 1993, increasing at an average rate of 11.2 percent annually. This strong growth boosted health care’s role in the overall economy, with health expenditures rising from 5.2 percent to 13.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between 1960 and 1993."

"National health expenditures are projected to reach $4.3 trillion in 2017, up from $2.1 trillion in 2006. After increasing 6.7 percent in 2006, NHE growth is projected to remain steady at 6.7 percent in 2007 and 6.6 percent in 2008. From 2006 through 2017, health care spending is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.7 percent, roughly 1.9 percentage points faster than the expected rate of GDP growth. As a percentage of GDP, national health spending is expected to reach 19.5 percent by 2017, up from 16.0 percent in 2006."

When the term "rationing of care" is used - this is ONE of the meanings -> $0 benefit for skilled nursing facility after 100 days.

"For hospital care covered under Part A, a fee-for-service beneficiary’s payment share includes a one-time deductible amount at the beginning of each benefit period ($1,068 in 2009). This deductible covers the beneficiary’s part of the first 60 days of each spell of inpatient hospital care. If continued inpatient care is needed beyond the 60 days, additional coinsurance payments ($267 per day in 2009) are required through the 90th day of a benefit period. Each Part A beneficiary also has a “lifetime reserve” of 60 additional hospital days that may be used when the covered days within a benefit period have been exhausted. Lifetime reserve days may be used only once, and coinsurance payments ($534 per day in 2009) are required.

For skilled nursing care covered under Part A, Medicare fully covers the first 20 days in a benefit period. But for days 21-100, a copayment ($133.50 per day in 2009) is required from the beneficiary. After 100 days per benefit period, Medicare pays nothing for SNF care. Home health care has no deductible or coinsurance payment by the beneficiary. In any Part A service, the beneficiary is responsible for fees to cover the first 3 pints or units of non-replaced blood per calendar year. The beneficiary has the option of paying the fee or of having the blood replaced."

We often hear that people who most need coverage are not covered. However, there were 56 million people covered under Medicaid in 2007 and 51% (28.7 million) were children.

"As with all health insurance programs, most Medicaid beneficiaries incur relatively small average expenditures per person each year, and a relatively small proportion incurs very large costs. Moreover, the average cost varies substantially by type of beneficiary. National data for 2005, for example, indicate that Medicaid payments for services for 28.7 million children, who constituted 51 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged about $1,667 per child. Similarly, for 13.7 million adults, who comprised 24 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged about $2,475 per person. However, other groups had much larger per-person expenditures. Medicaid payments for services for 4.9 million aged, who constituted 9 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged about $13,675 per person; for 9.1 million disabled, who comprised 16 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged about $13,846 per person. When expenditures for these high- and lower-cost beneficiaries are combined, the 2005 payments to health care vendors for 56.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries averaged $4,859 per person.
Long-term care is an important provision of Medicaid that will be increasingly utilized as our nation’s population ages. The Medicaid program paid for over 41 percent of the total cost of care for persons using nursing facility or home health services in 2005. National data for 2005 show that Medicaid payments for nursing facility services (excluding ICFs/MR) totaled $44.7 billion for more than 1.7 million beneficiaries of these services—an average expenditure of $26,234 per nursing home beneficiary. The national data also show that Medicaid payments for home health services totaled $5.4 billion for 24
1.2 million beneficiaries—an average expenditure of $4,510 per home health care beneficiary. With the percentage of our population who are elderly or disabled increasing faster than that of the younger groups, the need for long-term care is expected to increase.
Another significant development in Medicaid is the growth in managed care as an alternative service delivery concept different from the traditional fee-for-service system. Under managed care systems, HMOs, prepaid health plans (PHPs), or comparable entities agree to provide a specific set of services to Medicaid enrollees, usually in return for a predetermined periodic payment per enrollee. Managed care programs seek to enhance access to quality care in a cost-effective manner. Waivers may provide the States with greater flexibility in the design and implementation of their Medicaid managed care programs. Waiver authority under sections 1915(b) and 1115 of the Social Security Act is an important part of the Medicaid program. Section 1915(b) waivers allow States to develop innovative health care delivery or reimbursement systems. Section 1115 waivers allow statewide health care reform experimental demonstrations to cover uninsured populations and to test new delivery systems without increasing costs. Finally, the BBA provided States a new option to use managed care without a waiver. The number of Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in some form of managed care program is growing rapidly, from 48 percent of enrollees in 1997 to 64 percent in 2007.
More than 56 million persons received health care services through the Medicaid program in FY 2005 (the last year for which beneficiary data are available). In FY 2007, total expenditures for the Medicaid program (Federal and State) were $335.8 billion, including direct payment to providers of $232.6 billion, payments for various premiums (for HMOs, Medicare, etc.) of $67.0 billion, payments to disproportionate share hospitals of $16.1 billion, administrative costs of $17.3 billion, and $2.7 billion for the Vaccines for Children Program. Expenditures under the SCHIP program in FY 2007 were $8.8 billion. With no changes to the program, spending under Medicaid is projected to reach $523 billion by FY 2013. (SCHIP is currently authorized and funded only through March 2009.)"

Again, this is an informative piece and should be reviewed in it's entirety.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts. I was just talking with a contractor doing some work at our house. We ended up discussing health care a bit, and though I know better than to get into it too much with people around here [many die-hard Obama haters] I probe a bit without committing to any particular position wrt solutions.

We were comparing notes on health care as his wife has also been in the business for thirty years. He agrees that the system doesn't work [that health care fails miserably on many levels]. He agrees that the costs are too high. He also agrees that insurance regulations are a nightmare. He hears all of the same complaints from his wife that I hear from mine. So I asked what he thinks we should do.

He said, "I think they [meaning insurance carriers] should all be independent". "But they are now", I replied. He shrugged his shoulders and said something like "well then, I don't know". This just another example of how the "opposition" has people so confused that they have no idea what we have or what they want. He was quick to blame everything on Obama at every turn while having no idea what he was talking about.

At this point I think the Democrats need to abandon concerns about bipartisanship and ram something through. There is no hope for many of these folks [man on the street]. They have been brainwashed by people like Palin, Limbaugh, and Grassley.

 

[WhoWee]

At this point I think the Democrats need to abandon concerns about bipartisanship and ram something through. There is no hope for many of these folks [man on the street]. They have been brainwashed by people like Palin, Limbaugh, and Grassley.

I think the reason the Bill is SO complicated is that it causes frustration and the result is your posting - just do something already.

Nobody understands HR3200 and it's not the answer to our health care problems.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think the length of the bill is necessarily a problem. The problem is that people don't read it, don't know what it says, and still hold serious opinions on it. How much it costs is one thing, and I am skeptical about whether or not we should be getting ourselves into this kind of debt. But, if the best that the opposition can do to refute it, is to make up bogus lies about what's in it, and resort to deception, then maybe it isn't all that bad.

As for the cost, if it is what it is supposed to be, then we should expect an eventual return. Just because the price is high now, doesn't mean we won't be better off in 4-8-or ten years. Why would Obama push this plan in his first term if he thought it would fail. If it does fail, he will have a hard time being re-elected. I am not an economist, but I know the difference between just spending and investing.

Lastly, if we can afford to go to war we should be able to afford the health care plan. If only we hadn't wasted so much money in Iraq, it would be no sweat. I think we should pull out of Afghanistan.

 

[turbo]

Right now, the GOP and no small portion of the Democratic party are doing the bidding of the insurance companies that bankroll their campaigns. Health-care costs are projected to double by 2020, so when some politician says "we have to slow down" I have to think how we will pay for the delay. We pay the costs associated with treating the uninsured and underinsured, in the form of higher charges for hospital visits, treatments, etc. If everybody was insured, hospitals and medical practices wouldn't have to jack up their fees to try to cover the costs of treating the uninsured and the cost of claims for the insured would fall. This is a complex argument to make in sound-bites, so the GOP is winning the debate among the poorly-informed and poorly-educated with their "death panels", "pull the plug on granny", "outlaw private coverage" lies.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think the length of the bill is necessarily a problem. The problem is that people don't read it, don't know what it says, and still hold serious opinions on it. How much it costs is one thing, and I am skeptical about whether or not we should be getting ourselves into this kind of debt. But, if the best that the opposition can do to refute it, is to make up bogus lies about what's in it, and resort to deception, then maybe it isn't all that bad.

As for the cost, if it is what it is supposed to be, then we should expect an eventual return. Just because the price is high now, doesn't mean we won't be better off in 4-8-or ten years. Why would Obama push this plan in his first term if he thought it would fail. If it does fail, he will have a hard time being re-elected. I am not an economist, but I know the difference between just spending and investing.

Lastly, if we can afford to go to war we should be able to afford the health care plan. If only we hadn't wasted so much money in Iraq, it would be no sweat. I think we should pull out of Afghanistan.

Have you read the Bill? If not, what is the basis of your position? What are the "bogus lies" - who told you someone is telling a lie?

Why did Obama push the Stimulus Bill through - remember there wasn't time to read the Bill? Now, months later, less than 20% of the funds have been released. He needs to ram all of his spending through before we wake up.

Last, do you really believe the cost of Iraq is comparable to the cost of HR3200?

The interest payments on HR3200 will be more than the total cost of Iraq.

 

[Al68]

He agrees that the system doesn't work [that health care fails miserably on many levels]. He agrees that the costs are too high. He also agrees that insurance regulations are a nightmare. He hears all of the same complaints from his wife that I hear from mine. So I asked what he thinks we should do.

He said, "I think they [meaning insurance carriers] should all be independent". "But they are now", I replied.

This is why I hate the word "system" being used. Insurance companies are independent of each other in every way, except that they have government regulation in common.

All the propaganda on the issue suggests that we are not talking about independent companies at all, but some system that insurance companies "joined". This is simply not the case.

 

[WhoWee]

This is why I hate the word "system" being used. Insurance companies are independent of each other in every way, except that they have government regulation in common.

All the propaganda on the issue suggests that we are not talking about independent companies at all, but some system that insurance companies "joined". This is simply not the case.

I'll post this again - we need standardization of insurance policies in all 50 states.

If an insurance company has 6 basic policies, they should be able to sell the same 6 policies in all 50 states - not 50 (states) x 6 (basic policies) = 300 different policies. The legal and administrative costs are enormous.

 

[jreelawg]

Have you read the Bill? If not, what is the basis of your position? What are the "bogus lies" - who told you someone is telling a lie?

Why did Obama push the Stimulus Bill through - remember there wasn't time to read the Bill? Now, months later, less than 20% of the funds have been released. He needs to ram all of his spending through before we wake up.

Last, do you really believe the cost of Iraq is comparable to the cost of HR3200?

The interest payments on HR3200 will be more than the total cost of Iraq.

The part about death panels actually just suggests that in the even that a person is under life sustaining care, the family of the person should discuss the options with their doctor. This simply means that they should have a discussion wether or not to pull the plug or not. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be a tomato, and many people leave it up to family to make the decision when the time comes that they are unable.

Even expensive private insurance plans require this, and many insurance companies won't pay for life sustaining care.


I imagine that if the bill didn't promote having a discussion with the doctor in such a case, the same people would probably be arguing that a government Czar is going to keep you on a machine against your will.

 

[jreelawg]

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.

That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Democratic-led Joint Economic Committee said.

The committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan.

The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.

The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans, the committee said."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/

Where as the cost of the War goes up and up, the cost of the Health Care bill goes down and down as we get our money back in savings. The further you go in history, the more money we will have saved, and eventually the amount may be astronomical. This of coarse is assuming the plan works.

 

[WhoWee]

The part about death panels actually just suggests that in the even that a person is under life sustaining care, the family of the person should discuss the options with their doctor. This simply means that they should have a discussion wether or not to pull the plug or not. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be a tomato, and many people leave it up to family to make the decision when the time comes that they are unable.

Even expensive private insurance plans require this, and many insurance companies won't pay for life sustaining care.


I imagine that if the bill didn't promote having a discussion with the doctor in such a case, the same people would probably be arguing that a government Czar is going to keep you on a machine against your will.

You said, "The problem is that people don't read it, don't know what it says, and still hold serious opinions on it. How much it costs is one thing, and I am skeptical about whether or not we should be getting ourselves into this kind of debt. But, if the best that the opposition can do to refute it, is to make up bogus lies about what's in it, and resort to deception, then maybe it isn't all that bad."

Accordingly, I asked "Have you read the Bill? If not, what is the basis of your position? What are the "bogus lies" - who told you someone is telling a lie?"

Should I assume your response is evidence that you haven't read the Bill and still have serious opinion on it?

 

[jreelawg]

You said, "The problem is that people don't read it, don't know what it says, and still hold serious opinions on it. How much it costs is one thing, and I am skeptical about whether or not we should be getting ourselves into this kind of debt. But, if the best that the opposition can do to refute it, is to make up bogus lies about what's in it, and resort to deception, then maybe it isn't all that bad."

Accordingly, I asked "Have you read the Bill? If not, what is the basis of your position? What are the "bogus lies" - who told you someone is telling a lie?"

Should I assume your response is evidence that you haven't read the Bill and still have serious opinion on it?

I don't have a serious opinion on it. I am not ready to vilify it, and I'm not ready to say it is going to work. But I do know that the death panel propaganda was a lie. This was exposed on the Daily Show, when a leading Death Panel propagandist was interviewed, brought the bill in with her to get some shock value at how long it is, claimed the part about death panels was right there on page X. When confronted, she tried to pretend she couldn't find it, then finally resorted to read the section I talked about which clearly proved her wrong.

 

[WhoWee]

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.

That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Democratic-led Joint Economic Committee said.

The committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan.

The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.

The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans, the committee said."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/

Where as the cost of the War goes up and up, the cost of the Health Care bill goes down and down as we get our money back in savings. The further you go in history, the more money we will have saved, and eventually the amount may be astronomical. This of coarse is assuming the plan works.

Again, you said "Lastly, if we can afford to go to war we should be able to afford the health care plan. If only we hadn't wasted so much money in Iraq, it would be no sweat. I think we should pull out of Afghanistan."

Now you're talking about lost productivity and projected costs through 2017?

The other number you're avoiding is the "fixed cost" of the military budget - regardless of whether those soldiers and resources are deployed or sitting in Kansas.

It's easy to manipulate stats - please find hard data on the actual (additional - in excess of fixed) cost of the wars and re-post.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't have a serious opinion on it. I am not ready to vilify it, and I'm not ready to say it is going to work. But I do know that the death panel propaganda was a lie. This was exposed on the Daily Show, when a leading Death Panel propagandist was interviewed, brought the bill in with her to get some shock value at how long it is, claimed the part about death panels was right there on page X. When confronted, she tried to pretend she couldn't find it, then finally resorted to read the section I talked about which clearly proved her wrong.

The "Daily Show"? You do realize that isn't a news show - right?

 

[jreelawg]

You could also argue that the human cost in lives lost of the war vs. the lives saved by healthcare make a difference. And I also stand by pointing out the difference in money thrown away vs, money invested.

 

[WhoWee]

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.

That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Democratic-led Joint Economic Committee said.

The committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan.

The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.

The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans, the committee said."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/

Where as the cost of the War goes up and up, the cost of the Health Care bill goes down and down as we get our money back in savings. The further you go in history, the more money we will have saved, and eventually the amount may be astronomical. This of coarse is assuming the plan works.

From the CBO report to Congress

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10400/07-26-InfoOnTriCommProposal.pdf

Preliminary Analysis of the Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided by the House Tri-Committee Group
EFFECTS ON THE FEDERAL DEFICIT / a,b,c 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010-2019
(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year)
Medicaid/CHIP Outlays /d,e 3 4 1 29 42 58 66 72 78 84 438
Exchange Subsidies 0 0 0 33 72 105 123 134 146 160 773
Payments by Employers to Exchanges /f,g 0 0 0 0 -3 -6 -8 -8 -9 -11 -45
Associated Effects on Tax Revenues /f * * * 10 10 3 -1 -1 -2 -4 15
Subtotal 3 4 1 72 122 160 180 196 213 230 1,182
Small Employer Credits /h 0 0 0 4 7 8 8 8 10 10 53
Payments by Uninsured Individuals 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -4 -5 -5 -5 -29
"Play-or-Pay" Payments by Employers /f,h 0 0 0 -7 -16 -21 -26 -29 -31 -33 -163
NET IMPACT OF COVERAGE SPECIFICATIONS 3 4 1 69 107 141 158 171 187 202 1,042

 

[jreelawg]

The "Daily Show"? You do realize that isn't a news show - right?

When he interviews someone important, and they read the page out of the bill we are discussing, then it's news to me. If you disagree with my take on the death panel argument, then why don't you post some text from the bill. It would seem that it being such a hot topic, that FOX or someone would have it in a report.

 

[Al68]

This is a complex argument to make in sound-bites, so the GOP is winning the debate among the poorly-informed and poorly-educated with their "death panels", "pull the plug on granny", "outlaw private coverage" lies.

While these first two are speculative to say the least, the last thing you call a lie is in HR3200 in clear black and white.

Although there is a grandfather clause so that insurance companies don't have to immediately drop their customers in some cases, it will be illegal (outlawed) for them to sell the same type of policy to anyone else, ever.

HR3200 does indeed immediately outlaw every private health insurance policy that isn't either a comprehensive health plan that meets the new requirements, or is a grandfathered existing policy. In other words, it outlaws any new policy that is similar to most existing policies today.

In this case, it is the "poorly-informed" that don't know this. Why would you call it a "lie"?