Re: OT: Interesting article on the healthcare bill

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:

>> 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:
>

The CBO also warned that it's estimate may not even apply as the
reconciliation they are basing their numbers upon may be different then
the final one.  Well, that, plus the reconciliation may never even be
applied to the bill.

I just don't understand why they can't simply pas a house version of the
bill and run it back through committee like they do all the others.

Why the rush?

> "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.
>

It IS something both democrats and republicans have used in the past but
for budget bills.  Not for legislation like this.

>>> 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.
>

Let's be fair, he's a much better reader than he is a speaker.  There is
a lot of speech disfluency when speaking off the cuff.  "Gifted"
speakers have learned to eliminate fillers and, if need be, remain
silent for a moment, appearing contemplative rather than rushed and
rambling.

If the American people want a change, it won't be dead.  What they don't
want (check the polls) is this.

>> 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.
>

The republicans said, long ago, that they had no intention of supporting
the bill.  It was insufficient support from fellow democrats that has
stymied it so far.


>> 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,
>

But under the same stipulations as COBRA.  Prohibitively expensive which
will drop them into an exchange or get them fined for not having
insurance.  The language is still in the bill, once you drop your
coverage NEW coverage comes from the exchange.

I agree, right now most people do not have much choice over what health
insurance they have, it's chosen by their employer.

The system needs to be fixed, not simply have the control shifted to the
government.


>> 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.
>

What conference?  The fine is still there.

>> 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.
>

Fortune 500 and most other sources list it the same if not lower.  What
"reliable" sources are you using?


>> 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?
>

The main problem is that the consumer had been insulated from the
provider, cost-wise for far too long.

The free market doesn't work when it is not really being used.