Re: OT: Interesting article on the healthcare bill

["Robert L Bass" <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"mleuck" wrote:
>
> It's more complicated than that, first off Medicare spending isn't
> even part of the CBO figures which removes about 500 billion from the
> price tag, secondly the Medicare doctor fix as of today puts the
> numbers way into the red, thirdly the estimates don't factor in GDP

Mark is wrong. Reduction of fraud and waste in medicare funding
are a significant part of what was taken into consideration. Here's
the reference, taken directly from the CBO report.

"Table 4. Preliminary Estimate of Incremental Effects of Health and
"Revenue Provisions of Reconciliation Legislation "Relative to H.R.
"3590 as passed by the Senate Estimated effects on direct spending
"and revenues; based on draft legislative language and modifications
"discussed with staff Billions of dollars, by fiscal year"

Yahoo news is helpful but when politicians are lying to the news
media (which is pretty much all the time), you need to go directly to
the document. As soon as the CBO report came out, adamantly
proclaiming that the bill would *reduce* the deficit by a tremendous
amount, Republican politicians stoof in front of news microphones
waiving copies of the report and literally shouting that the bill will
"destroy the economy."  Anyone who watech only Fox news was
immediately convinced, "it's a bill we can't afford to pay," to quote
the ad they've been running on (get this) MSNBC for about a month.

> Fifthly this is the same CBO that in the mid 60's said Medicare
> will only cost 10 billion 25 years after the program was started
> when it actually turned out to be over 110 billion, they cannot
> predict later political influences and decisions

If you read the report, you would also notice that the CBO was
reluctant to predict beyond the initial 10-year window. Here's a
portion of the text. These reports are not hard to get and nor
are they complex reading. IMO it's worth the trouble to simply
read them rather than make declarations based on opinion or
(worse) anything on Fox:

"Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond
"the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules
"require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation
"in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO's
"analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the
"nation's health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO
"has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the
"2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the legislation into
"broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee
"on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of
"each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time. Our
"analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would
"reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to
"those projected under current law-with a total effect during that
"decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and
"one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).3 The imprecision
"of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that
"attends to it, compared with CBO's 10-year budget estimates."

>> That's just procedure. It doesn't change the nature of the bill nor
>> it's benefits.
>
> Something unconstitutional is just a procedure, figures

It's not unconstitutional. It's also not something both Democrats and
Republicans have used in the past and will likely continue to use. It
is quite normal for Republicans to use a procedure when it suits them
and then cry foul when Democrats use the same procedure.

>> I'm just having trouble figuring out why there is such a rush to pass
>> something that won't take effect for four (or more) years.
>
> That's easy. The Republicans, along with a few dishonest Democrats
> (yes, we have them, too) have been very successful in their campaign
> of lies and are almost certain to take back the majority in the House.
> This is the only time we are likely to be able to get it done.
>
> Odd that the great communicator after giving over 30 speeches in
> the past year on healthcare can't seem to get his message out, then
> again I think that message is the reason why it's failing

True, Obama is a gifted speaker. It's a refreshing change after listening
to his predecessor mangle the language for eight years. But it isn't about
his speaking gift at this point. Reality is that Republicans may gain
control of the House and that would be the end of America's hope for
change.

> LOL! Democrats have the presidency, a majority in the House, up
> until Scott Brown a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and YET
> it's Republican's fault

Oh, no Mark.  On this point I agree with you. It's our fault for believing
even for a moment that Republicands in the committees were negotiating
in good faith. Had our congressmen opened their eyes sooner to the fact
that the Republicans never had any intention of supporting the bill, no
matter what we gave up, we'd have passed this thing and with much
stronger language months ago.

> You might want to lay off the Morphine drip a little

That's not how it works.

> That's not entirely correct. Most people will continue with the
> same insurance carriers they have.
>
> Until they quit their job and must join the government plan...

That's not completely true either. If you quit your job you will be covered
by your current carrier for a longer period than current COBRA rules
provide. When (if) you find new employment you will have the same
choices you would today,

> oh you didn't know that was there did you? Also expanded power by
> the IRS who will fine you up to $2,200 if you don't have insurance

I have to check but I believe that's been mitigated or eliminated. If not, it
will be significantly changed to the employee's favor during the conference.

> Interesting how in your example the government plan has fewer options
> than the private plan

The government plan is in addition to the private plans so it is by definition
an additional option. I'm speaking of what is currently being called the
exchange. I'm pretty sure the "levels" of coverage on it have not yet been
fully developed. This is normal since implementation doesn't come into
play for several years. The same would be true if a new orivate carrier came
to the table. They would start with fairly generalised plans and fine tune
them over time. The *estimates* of their overall effect would not be very
precise until all of the minutae were worked out.

> Someone has to pay for it

Correct. You can read the bill to see the figures and the structure. It's
readily available.

> It's not really the medical care system that's at fault, though it certainly
> has areas that could improve. It's the isurance industry that rakes 20-30%
> off the top while providing nothing useful to anyone.

> I'm sure the Insurance companies would love a profit of 20-30%
> but it just isn't true. Here's a nice list of who's ahead of them

Again, you cite opinions on a right-wing blog. I avoid those sites due to
the high concentration of malignant cookies, etc. Let's try using more
reliable sources.

> But hey I guess to pass this crap you have to blame someone...

You don't believe that health insurance providers have contributed to the
problem?

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=====================
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota, Florida 34233
941-870-2310
www.basshome.com
=====================