Re: OT: Interesting article on the healthcare bill

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 20, 3:07=A0pm, "Robert L Bass" <rob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>
> > Except the CBO even said (in their cover letter) their numbers are not
> > accurate because they haven't seen the reconciliation...
>
> The CBO figures are, as they always are, based on the bill as currently w=
ritten.
> There will be changes and those will make a difference but the difference=
s will
> be fractional -- never enough to turn what is a windfall gain for the eco=
nmy
> into anything like a loss.

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

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=
=3D0&.v=3D2

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

> > Could be a moot point anyway since the Senate parliamentarian
> > is now saying that President Obama would have to sign a health
> > care bill into law before Congress can amend it with a
> > reconciliation measure.
>
> That's just procedure. It doesn't change the nature of the bill nor it's
> benefits.

Something unconstitutional is just a procedure, figures

> > 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 al=
most
> 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


> > It's also a little troublesome that the mandate to get insurance
> > (which is troublesome in itself) is permanent but the tax credits
> > to help poor folks afford it are only temporary. Even most
> > democrats are now saying that premiums won't go down.
>
> I'm pretty sure that was done to appease Republicans during the endless
> committee meetings. Democrats made the stupid mistake of trying to negoti=
ate
> with the Republicans. The Republicans never for a moment intended to vote=
 yes,
> no matter if we gave them every thing they demanded. The whole point was =
to
> "stio Obama." You can't negotiate with people like that. We should have s=
imply
> voted on each measure we wanted and completely ignored Republican input, =
then
> passed the bill with a public option. That's the problem with our Democra=
tic
> leaders. They're too nice. =A0:^)

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

You might want to lay off the Morphine drip a little


> > It doesn't provide people with the ability to select varying
> > levels of coverage like you can with most other insurances...
>
> That's not entirely correct. Most people will continue with the same insu=
rance
> carriers they have.

Until they quit their job and must join the government plan...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

They will have whatever coverage choices they had before the
> bill. Their primary immediate benefite are no lifetime cap (essential for=
 people
> like me), no pre-existing coverage rules, no getting dropped if you get s=
ick and
> a few other really important protections. Those who buy through the excha=
nge may
> have fewer options than those who already had insurance but without the b=
ill
> they have no coverage at all.

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

Someone has to pay for it

> It's not really the medical care system that's at fault, though it certai=
nly
> 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

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s=
1600-h/profits.bmp

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