CBO: Health care repeal would increase deficit [Archive] - The Orange Mane

The Lone Bolt

01-06-2011, 10:10 PM

You guys don't honestly believe you can cover 30m more people with health care and it actually costs less money than not covering the 30m people do you? Honestly, do you? Only a rube would think such a thing is actually true.

I will buy the its the right thing to do argument but don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming it will save money.

Then you should contact CBO and tell them that you know more than they do with your impressive economics background and intensive research on the subject.

Yes I believe that it will lower costs and save money. We will not be covering 30 million more people with the same amount of funding that we have today. In the new plan, almost every one of those new enrollees will be paying for their coverage. And as the risk will be spread out the premiums should be lower.

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 07:48 AM

You guys don't honestly believe you can cover 30m more people with health care and it actually costs less money than not covering the 30m people do you? Honestly, do you? Only a rube would think such a thing is actually true.

I will buy the its the right thing to do argument but don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming it will save money.

These people already get health care by simply walking in to hospitals and emergency rooms but the cost is amplified and passed on in the form of higher insurance costs for those who do have coverage. You think those who don't have coverage today (50 million and counting) are actually turned away?

If they have access to regular check ups, vaccines, antibiotics etc., you think it might actually save some costs instead of waiting until the problems are very serious?

Maybe, maybe not but it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

JJJ

01-07-2011, 09:24 AM

These people already get health care by simply walking in to hospitals and emergency rooms but the cost is amplified and passed on in the form of higher insurance costs for those who do have coverage. You think those who don't have coverage today (50 million and counting) are actually turned away?

If they have access to regular check ups, vaccines, antibiotics etc., you think it might actually save some costs instead of waiting until the problems are very serious?

Maybe, maybe not but it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Sorry, but it really is that cut and dry. The only reason it reduces the deficit is they collect 4 years of taxes before the costs kick in. The costs will be significantly higher than the projection like they always are. You guys are naive and dangerously so.

Worse is you will throw millions into a state of limbo as companies start to shed paying for health care as private companies jack up rates, like California Blue Shield did this week, increases of up to 59%. Watch the chaos really start to kick in over the next week open enrollment periods in 2011 and 2012. I am sure the goverent will not have their alternatives set up in time.

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 10:27 AM

Sorry, but it really is that cut and dry. The only reason it reduces the deficit is they collect 4 years of taxes before the costs kick in. The costs will be significantly higher than the projection like they always are. You guys are naive and dangerously so.

Worse is you will throw millions into a state of limbo as companies start to shed paying for health care as private companies jack up rates, like California Blue Shield did this week, increases of up to 59%. Watch the chaos really start to kick in over the next week open enrollment periods in 2011 and 2012. I am sure the goverent will not have their alternatives set up in time.

You better alert the CBO to your findings.

Smiling Assassin27

01-07-2011, 11:06 AM

AP - Repealing President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul would add billions to government red ink and leave millions without coverage, Congress' nonpartisan budget referees said Thursday ahead of a politically charged vote in the House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110107/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_repeal

Horsecrap. Not wholly unexpected but still horsecrap. It's pretty clear you ain't good with numbers and even more clear that you think facts are just too damn inconvenient for you.

If you paid attention during the 'debate' on this, you'd know that health care abomination was filled with utterly fraudulent figures. The sad part is that you DO know this and you also know you're lying about it.

CBO has to score legislation as it's drafted and this legislation was manipulated to obtain the score CBO gave it. The doc-fix alone was not scored by CBO but they have, at Paul Ryan's request, scored it with the doc fix, the added bureaucracies and with correction of the double counting the Dems used to have CBO score the original legislation and you really don't wanna hear the reality, so I won't ruin your weekend.

Do your homework rather than imitate a parrot.

p.s. Happy New Year

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 11:10 AM

Horsecrap. Not wholly unexpected but still horsecrap. It's pretty clear you ain't good with numbers and even more clear that you think facts are just too damn inconvenient for you.

If you paid attention during the 'debate' on this, you'd know that health care abomination was filled with utterly fraudulent figures. The sad part is that you DO know this and you also know you're lying about it.

CBO has to score legislation as it's drafted and this legislation was manipulated to obtain the score CBO gave it. The doc-fix alone was not scored by CBO but they have, at Paul Ryan's request, scored it with the doc fix, the added bureaucracies and with correction of the double counting the Dems used to have CBO score the original legislation and you really don't wanna hear the reality, so I won't ruin your weekend.

Do your homework rather than imitate a parrot.

p.s. Happy New Year

I'd like to hear it. You got a link?

BroncoLifer

01-07-2011, 12:05 PM

You better alert the CBO to your findings.

You appear to be ignorant of how the CBO works and how the original score was derived. JJJ is absolutely correct --- anyone who understands how the CBO actually works and followed the Obamacare scoring process from the beginning knows it.

Congress (then under management of Pelosi and Reid) required the CBO 10-year scoring to be based on a full 10 years of taxes but only 6 years of expenditures, among other things. This was done to obtain a result to be used to fool the gullible and the inattentive.

The CBO is required by law to run their models based on whatever assumptions Congress feeds it regardless of their correctness or probability of actually occurring . So, garbage in, garbage out. The CBO is often portrayed as some sort of independent agency which issues dispassionate wisdom to be used to guide policy makers. Actually, it is nothing of the kind. In fact, it is just another political tool.

cutthemdown

01-07-2011, 12:55 PM

They should just repeal the madatory coverage aspect of the program. Without there tax it can't be paid for.

cutthemdown

01-07-2011, 12:56 PM

Exactly on about the CBO. The CBO uses a lot of projected assumptions which may or may not come true.

epicSocialism4tw

01-07-2011, 01:19 PM

Mile High Shack

01-07-2011, 01:22 PM

LABF has been nothing but a hard-left parrot during his entire time in this forum. It would take a miracle for him to be anything else.

not for nothin' but the same could be said about you, except insert right where left is

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 01:39 PM

You appear to be ignorant of how the CBO works and how the original score was derived. JJJ is absolutely correct --- anyone who understands how the CBO actually works and followed the Obamacare scoring process from the beginning knows it.

Congress (then under management of Pelosi and Reid) required the CBO 10-year scoring to be based on a full 10 years of taxes but only 6 years of expenditures, among other things. This was done to obtain a result to be used to fool the gullible and the inattentive.

The CBO is required by law to run their models based on whatever assumptions Congress feeds it regardless of their correctness or probability of actually occurring . So, garbage in, garbage out. The CBO is often portrayed as some sort of independent agency which issues dispassionate wisdom to be used to guide policy makers. Actually, it is nothing of the kind. In fact, it is just another political tool.

That's great. Since you are so informed, can you show me where the "proper" scoring is?

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 01:59 PM

LABF has been nothing but a hard-left parrot during his entire time in this forum. It would take a miracle for him to be anything else.

You best believe if the CBO number supported your theory, you'd be on hear barking like a dog.

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 02:01 PM

Taco John

01-07-2011, 02:31 PM

Meh. I'm looking forward to the thing being repealled in 2012 with the senate and presidency flip.

Or even better when the Supreme Court shoots it down.

Smiling Assassin27

01-07-2011, 02:48 PM

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It’s the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob

Uh oh. Anyone wanna retract anything?

Mr.Meanie

01-07-2011, 02:54 PM

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It’s the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

Uh oh. Anyone wanna retract anything?

Admittedly I'm not the best at the maths and all, but isn't your quote saying that repealing Obamacare indeed eliminates $230B in tax revenue?

(-$540B) spending
+ $770B tax revenue
$230B surplus

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 02:58 PM

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob

Uh oh. Anyone wanna retract anything?

I thought everybody already knew the bill contained tax hikes?

Anyhow, just curious Assassin, is it your belief that the U.S will climb out of a 14 trillion dollar hole without ever raising taxes?

I'm not asking about how we got here because both parties are to blame. I just want your opinion on whether or not you believe we can climb out without raising taxes.

BroncoLifer

01-07-2011, 03:10 PM

CBO policies:
http://cbo.gov/aboutcbo/policies.cfm

When undertaking a cost estimate, CBO analysts contact the staff of the committee of jurisdiction and, when applicable, the staffs of the Member sponsoring the proposal and the Member requesting the estimate to gather background information and discuss the schedule for completing the estimate. Budget and mandate cost estimates are based on the text of the proposed legislation. CBO analysts consult with the staff of the committee of jurisdiction (for a reported bill) or the sponsoring Member (for an introduced bill or amendment) when questions of interpretation arise, but they draw their own conclusions on an impartial and objective basis.

While that looks nice upon first glance, the phrase "budget and mandate cost estimates are based on the text of the proposed legislation" is the key.

Some examples out of many:

The biggest issue is that PPACA ("Obamacare") was given a 10-year analysis by the CBO. The law was written to include a full 10 years of revenues (taxes) but delays implementation of expenses (benefits) so that they only account for the final six years over that 10-year period. Thus, an incredibly distorted view of the actual long-term financial impact of the program is achieved. If you were a CFO, would you really present a long-term plan to your Board of Directors that included 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of expenses? But because of CBO policies, that's exactly what they had to do.

Similarly on the CLASS Act -- the law calls for collecting premiums now for a program that won't kick in until later. As with Social Security, the system assumes current payments for future benefits. The CLASS Act on it's own does not reduce the deficit, it is priced to be break-even. But the CBO score claims savings today since the spending impact is tomorrow. The simple fact is that you cannot spend money you owe in the future elsewhere and claim fiscal responsibility. It is beyond silly to pretend that the timing of CLASS Act payments improves our fiscal situation.

Another example --- for more than 10 years, both "R" and "D" Congresses have balked at "in-the-law" mandated reductions in payments to doctors for covering Medicare patients and have voted for yearly deferrals of those cuts to avoid a revolt by doctors and seniors. In order to make the final CBO score look better, the PPACA calls for a greater cut then ANYBODY in Washington believes is realistic. But the CBO scores based on the text of the legislation, so voila.

BroncoLifer

01-07-2011, 03:21 PM

I forgot to mention that another good example of why we can't truut the CBO analysis is that the PPACA (and thus the CBO score) includes revenue (taxes) on the so-called Cadillac health plans. But we've already seen the properly connected special interests get implementation of those taxes waived, thus reducing the claimed revenue.

epicSocialism4tw

01-07-2011, 03:30 PM

not for nothin' but the same could be said about you, except insert right where left is

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and haven't shown anything otherwise since you have returned to the site.

epicSocialism4tw

01-07-2011, 03:31 PM

Anyhow, just curious Assassin, is it your belief that the U.S will climb out of a 14 trillion dollar hole without ever raising taxes?

By cutting back the bureaucracy.

You guys just dont get it.

Its time to start dismantling this monster.

Popcorn Sutton

01-07-2011, 04:02 PM

By cutting back the bureaucracy.

You guys just dont get it.

Its time to start dismantling this monster.

What is it with you and this you guys talk? If somebody doesn't agree with your position you act like a child.

I don't subscribe to the Democratic party and their ideologies but I like to question why the U.S. spends more on health care per GDP than any other country in the world -- prior to Obamacare. You guys think it's so cut and dry.

Anyhow, so back to your point of dismantling this monster. I've seen many on here continue to defend the military industrial complex. I'd fall over in my chair the day I see a Republican OR Democrat actually produce legislation that drastically cuts defense spending which accounts for over 50% of the budget. Health care only accounts for about 16%.

Play2win

01-07-2011, 04:32 PM

Meh. I'm looking forward to the thing being repealled in 2012 with the senate and presidency flip.

Or even better when the Supreme Court shoots it down.

Spoken like a true republican.

epicSocialism4tw

01-07-2011, 04:50 PM

What is it with you and this you guys talk? If somebody doesn't agree with your position you act like a child.

I don't subscribe to the Democratic party and their ideologies but I like to question why the U.S. spends more on health care per GDP than any other country in the world -- prior to Obamacare. You guys think it's so cut and dry.

Anyhow, so back to your point of dismantling this monster. I've seen many on here continue to defend the military industrial complex. I'd fall over in my chair the day I see a Republican OR Democrat actually produce legislation that drastically cuts defense spending which accounts for over 50% of the budget. Health care only accounts for about 16%.

Our federal government is assigned the job of providing a military by the US Constitution. Granted it is not assigned the job of nation-building and fighting wars to protect foreign interests.

Our federal government is not assigned the job of providing health care for the masses. There are better solutions instead of the inefficient, wasteful, impersonal, inhumane, poor quality health care offered by the Obama administration.

Its time to start seeking real solutions in real time. The same goes for energy independence and the "justice" system.

epicSocialism4tw

01-07-2011, 04:51 PM

Spoken like a true republican.

Spoken like a true socialist.

The Lone Bolt

01-07-2011, 04:58 PM

While that looks nice upon first glance, the phrase "budget and mandate cost estimates are based on the text of the proposed legislation" is the key.

Some examples out of many:

The biggest issue is that PPACA ("Obamacare") was given a 10-year analysis by the CBO. The law was written to include a full 10 years of revenues (taxes) but delays implementation of expenses (benefits) so that they only account for the final six years over that 10-year period. Thus, an incredibly distorted view of the actual long-term financial impact of the program is achieved. If you were a CFO, would you really present a long-term plan to your Board of Directors that included 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of expenses? But because of CBO policies, that's exactly what they had to do.

Similarly on the CLASS Act -- the law calls for collecting premiums now for a program that won't kick in until later. As with Social Security, the system assumes current payments for future benefits. The CLASS Act on it's own does not reduce the deficit, it is priced to be break-even. But the CBO score claims savings today since the spending impact is tomorrow. The simple fact is that you cannot spend money you owe in the future elsewhere and claim fiscal responsibility. It is beyond silly to pretend that the timing of CLASS Act payments improves our fiscal situation.

Another example --- for more than 10 years, both "R" and "D" Congresses have balked at "in-the-law" mandated reductions in payments to doctors for covering Medicare patients and have voted for yearly deferrals of those cuts to avoid a revolt by doctors and seniors. In order to make the final CBO score look better, the PPACA calls for a greater cut then ANYBODY in Washington believes is realistic. But the CBO scores based on the text of the legislation, so voila.

Assuming all this is true, when will the repubs supply CBO with the "real" numbers and when will CBO offer another estimate based on those "real" numbers. They can have this done, no?

Garcia Bronco

01-08-2011, 08:32 AM

peacepipe

01-08-2011, 08:35 AM

more like 10 million

brew is correct. making up a # like 10 million doesn't make it so.

chadta

01-08-2011, 08:58 AM

These people already get health care by simply walking in to hospitals and emergency rooms but the cost is amplified and passed on in the form of higher insurance costs for those who do have coverage. You think those who don't have coverage today (50 million and counting) are actually turned away?

If they have access to regular check ups, vaccines, antibiotics etc., you think it might actually save some costs instead of waiting until the problems are very serious?

Maybe, maybe not but it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

when you stop "paying" for health care it is percieved to be free, when somethign is free it is used more than it should be, you will end up like canada, do you want to sit in emerg for 10-14 hours ? cuz our average wait time is in that window, all our doctors leave, to go to the states where they can actually make money, so we're short on doctors, so people get a sneeze and go sit in emerg, and while they do wait the longer than the actual emergencies it still slows everybody down. I wont even get into hospital administration and how messed up it gets, when its not being done to make money no expense is spared, and efficiency means nothing.

its so bad even the liberal party up here has finally started taking about adding user fees to the health care just to make people think twice before going to the hospital.

The Lone Bolt

01-08-2011, 10:10 AM

when you stop "paying" for health care it is percieved to be free, when somethign is free it is used more than it should be, you will end up like canada, do you want to sit in emerg for 10-14 hours ? cuz our average wait time is in that window, all our doctors leave, to go to the states where they can actually make money, so we're short on doctors, so people get a sneeze and go sit in emerg, and while they do wait the longer than the actual emergencies it still slows everybody down. I wont even get into hospital administration and how messed up it gets, when its not being done to make money no expense is spared, and efficiency means nothing.

its so bad even the liberal party up here has finally started taking about adding user fees to the health care just to make people think twice before going to the hospital.

Hence the Obama (Romney) plan has everyone paying for their own insurance except those who cannot afford it.

BTW, when this was the Mitt Romney plan repubs had no problems with it. Now the dems pass an almost identical plan and repubs go ballistic. Why?

The Lone Bolt

01-08-2011, 10:14 AM

Our federal government is assigned the job of providing a military by the US Constitution. Granted it is not assigned the job of nation-building and fighting wars to protect foreign interests.

Our federal government is not assigned the job of providing health care for the masses. There are better solutions instead of the inefficient, wasteful, impersonal, inhumane, poor quality health care offered by the Obama administration.

Its time to start seeking real solutions in real time. The same goes for energy independence and the "justice" system.

How do you know that the Obama plan is "inefficient, wasteful, impersonal, inhumane, poor quality health care" when it hasn't even been implemented yet? That's like reviewing a book you haven't read.

DBruleU

01-08-2011, 10:16 AM

How do you know that the Obama plan is "inefficient, wasteful, impersonal, inhumane, poor quality health care" when it hasn't even been implemented yet? That's like reviewing a book you haven't read.

Nancy, is that you?

"We need to pass this legislation to know what's in it."

DBruleU

01-08-2011, 10:16 AM

Hence the Obama (Romney) plan has everyone paying for their own insurance except those who cannot afford it.

BTW, when this was the Mitt Romney plan repubs had no problems with it. Now the dems pass an almost identical plan and repubs go ballistic. Why?

Except all of America wasn't required to buy it under Romney, or face penalties.

BroncoLifer

01-08-2011, 10:18 AM

Assuming all this is true, when will the repubs supply CBO with the "real" numbers and when will CBO offer another estimate based on those "real" numbers. They can have this done, no?

Who knows? As I wrote, the CBO can be used as a political tool. Will the Rs use it in a way similar to the way the Ds did? Only time will tell.

chadta

01-08-2011, 11:00 AM

Hence the Obama (Romney) plan has everyone paying for their own insurance except those who cannot afford it.

oh great, so the rich guy hides his income an gets free health care, while the guy making minimum wage has to now pay for somethign that he didnt have to before, sure he has health care but he cant afford to eat on weekends, sounds like a good idea to me.

The Lone Bolt

01-08-2011, 11:15 AM

Nancy, is that you?

"We need to pass this legislation to know what's in it."

I shouldn't have to point out to you that there is a difference between plan and implementation. The theory behind the HC reform plan is sound IMO. Will it work in the real world? I don't know for sure.

Neither do you know for sure that it will fail. How about opening your mind a little and giving it a chance?

The Lone Bolt

01-08-2011, 11:16 AM

oh great, so the rich guy hides his income an gets free health care, while the guy making minimum wage has to now pay for somethign that he didnt have to before, sure he has health care but he cant afford to eat on weekends, sounds like a good idea to me.

A lot of unfounded speculation here.

The Lone Bolt

01-08-2011, 11:20 AM

Except all of America wasn't required to buy it under Romney, or face penalties.

No, but eveyone in Massachussetts is required to buy. Thus the Massachussetts plan is a microcosm of the national plan. And it's a republican plan.

So why do the repubs suddenly oppose a plan they had no problem with before?

The Lone Bolt

01-08-2011, 11:21 AM

Who knows? As I wrote, the CBO can be used as a political tool. Will the Rs use it in a way similar to the way the Ds did? Only time will tell.

So from now on when the repubs cite CBO to support their positions you will dismiss it?

epicSocialism4tw

01-08-2011, 12:19 PM

I shouldn't have to point out to you that there is a difference between plan and implementation. The theory behind the HC reform plan is sound IMO. Will it work in the real world? I don't know for sure.

Neither do you know for sure that it will fail. How about opening your mind a little and giving it a chance?

I have a suggestion for you. Im sure that you will not see it through or give it any thought, but I can cure you of your curiosity.

Go down to your local state hospital. Take an entire day just to experience it. Sit in the ER for several hours. While patients are herded about into empty rooms, take not of how cold and impersonal the entirety of the experience is.

You have a naive opinion of what socialized health care is.

epicSocialism4tw

01-08-2011, 12:20 PM

No, but eveyone in Massachussetts is required to buy. Thus the Massachussetts plan is a microcosm of the national plan. And it's a republican plan.

So why do the repubs suddenly oppose a plan they had no problem with before?

Explain the similarities and differences.

BroncoLifer

01-08-2011, 12:33 PM

So from now on when the repubs cite CBO to support their positions you will dismiss it?

Unlike many people, I recognize and am honest enough to admit that the side I generally prefer plays many of the same games that the other side does. But that doesn't mean that I play along.

The Lone Bolt

01-08-2011, 04:37 PM

Explain the similarities and differences.

It's not news when man bites dog, so why should it be any different when Mitt Romney makes a brash and insincere pronouncement?

And yet there was the one-time Massachusetts governor forcing his way into Monday morning's headlines with what may have been the most over-the-top of all of the over-the-top Republican reactions to the House's passage of Barack Obama's healthcare plan.

"An unconscionable abuse of power," Romney declared while asserting that the president "has betrayed his oath to the nation."

When Mitt starts talking like this, it's usually because he knows his own past record makes him vulnerable on the issue at hand.

And when it comes to healthcare, his hypocrisy is particularly galling. Romney is actually the only governor in American history ever to impose an individual health insurance mandate on his citizens. And an individual mandate, of course, is at the heart of Obama's reform package.

Nor is the mandate the only common ground between RomneyCare and ObamaCare; the Massachusetts plan that Romney signed into law in 2006 is essentially the blueprint for Obama's plan. Both rely on the same basic formula: a requirement that everyone purchase insurance and government assistance for those who can't afford it.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/22/mitt_romney_health_care_hypocrisy

As countless commentators have noted (Alex Knepper from the right, Brad DeLong from the left, and David Frum from the spurned right), Obamacare largely is Romneycare. The concept of attaining near-universal health insurance in a defined geographic area using a combination of a mandate, subsidies, and cost-control efforts is essentially what Romney did in Massachusetts earlier this decade. (Here's some video of Romney talking about an individual mandate as a conservative plan.)

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/28/mitt-romney-for-health-czar.html

"There is this widespread assumption, that is treated as fact, that it's breaking the bank in Massachusetts ... it's not breaking the bank at all." said Michael Widmer of Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

And health care experts say it's popular.

"Seven in 10 people in the state support the program, and no more than one in 10 would repeal it." said Robert Blendon with the Harvard University School of Public Health.

Unlike Democratic proposals that would give Americans the choice of joining a government-run health care plan, Massachusetts has no public option. Instead, people in the state are required to buy private insurance, and the poor get subsidies.

The reform created the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, which is similar to a health insurance exchange.

Nicknamed "Connector," its purpose, according to the state, is to connect individuals and small businesses statewide to affordable insurance plans.

The program reviews "existing health insurance coverage plans in the marketplace" and gives "certain plans the Connector 'seal of approval.' Plans offered through the Connector will not be subject to minimum contribution and participation rules," according to the state government's Web site.

And under the 2006 legislation, there are several requirements for insurance companies.

According to Brian Rosman of Health Care for All, a nonprofit based in Massachusetts, the requirements include:

Minimum benefits, such as preventive care, mental health care and hospitalizationA ban on gender discriminationLimits on total out-of-pocket costsA prohibition on pre-existing conditions as a qualifier for health coverageNo medical underwriting, so insurers can't ask an individual about his or her health status in order to determine coverageLimits on age restrictions, which means what is charged for an older individual cannot be more than double what is charged the youngest.Analysts say "Romney care" is basically "Obama care" minus the public option.

(Except the public option was killed in Obamacare)

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-20/politics/romney.health.care_1_health-care-health-insurance-exchange-public-option?_s=PM:POLITICS

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

01-08-2011, 05:55 PM

The cbo is bipartisan, but the right only uses them when it fits their argument,

This.

epicSocialism4tw

01-08-2011, 07:49 PM

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/22/mitt_romney_health_care_hypocrisy

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/28/mitt-romney-for-health-czar.html

(Except the public option was killed in Obamacare)

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-20/politics/romney.health.care_1_health-care-health-insurance-exchange-public-option?_s=PM:POLITICS

Those articles are rife with opinion and short on facts.

chadta

01-09-2011, 05:34 AM

A lot of unfounded speculation here.

so people with money dont try to hide it ? and $1000 to a guy making 250,000 isnt a big deal, but to somebody making 18,000 it sure is.

so please tell me whats so unfounded ?

The Lone Bolt

01-09-2011, 12:26 PM

so people with money dont try to hide it ? and $1000 to a guy making 250,000 isnt a big deal, but to somebody making 18,000 it sure is.

so please tell me whats so unfounded ?

This:

sure he has health care but he cant afford to eat on weekends

How do you know that premiums under the plan will be so unaffordable that working-class people will have to sacrifice other necessities? You have no evidence whatsoever supporting this claim.

The Lone Bolt

01-09-2011, 12:33 PM

Those articles are rife with opinion and short on facts.

I don't have time to do a full analysis myself. Why don't you tell me where they significantly differ?

The Romney plan has mandated purchasing of coverage, which republicans were OK with until the dem's passed a HC plan which also included mandates. Madates are OK as long as they are part of a republican plan. In a democrat plan they are suddenly unconstitutional and wrong.

The Romney plan includes an insurance exchange just like the democrat plan. When Romney does it, it's a free-market solution. When the dems include almost exactly the same feature in their plan, it's "socialism."

The repubs are full of it. They don't seriously believe that the Obama plan is socialism or that it will grow the national debt. They're just ticked off that when they had the opportunity to pass republican national HC reform they blew it, so now they have to sabotage the other party's efforts.

cutthemdown

01-09-2011, 12:48 PM

Just the fact govt paying for the poor people, but canceling it raises the deficit, that tells you right there middle class getting screwed and paying for it.

The Lone Bolt

01-09-2011, 12:55 PM

Just the fact govt paying for the poor people, but canceling it raises the deficit, that tells you right there middle class getting screwed and paying for it.

The middle class already gets screwed paying for ER visits for the uninsured. Unversal HC coverage would cut down on those as everyone would get primary and preventive care.

Popcorn Sutton

01-09-2011, 01:22 PM

Our federal government is assigned the job of providing a military by the US Constitution. Granted it is not assigned the job of nation-building and fighting wars to protect foreign interests.

Our federal government is not assigned the job of providing health care for the masses. There are better solutions instead of the inefficient, wasteful, impersonal, inhumane, poor quality health care offered by the Obama administration.

Its time to start seeking real solutions in real time. The same goes for energy independence and the "justice" system.

http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/10/country-distribution-2009.png

The USA with its massive spending budget, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for just under half of the world total, at 46.5% of the world total;

Ridiculous!!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

01-09-2011, 01:36 PM

^

McNameChange pwned again.

A daily occurence.

cutthemdown

01-09-2011, 02:41 PM

The middle class already gets screwed paying for ER visits for the uninsured. Unversal HC coverage would cut down on those as everyone would get primary and preventive care.

Just let ER turn people away unless they have money or insurance. Problem solved.

cutthemdown

01-09-2011, 02:42 PM

cutthemdown

01-09-2011, 02:43 PM

if one area whats to be conservative. Say hospitials here only treat insured or people with money, and we don't help pay etc then so be it.

Other areas could start systems more like Mass and Romney, whatever. I just have a problem with the feds telling everyone how it has to be. Its not there job.

The Lone Bolt

01-09-2011, 03:05 PM

Just let ER turn people away unless they have money or insurance. Problem solved.

As long as you volunteer to:

1) take away and bury the corpses of people denied medical care due to no money/insurance

2) explain to their families that they deserved to die because they had no money or insurance

But when it comes to carrying them away and burying them, don't worry. Many of them are sure to be children and they are light and easy to carry. Plus some of them will be disabled and can be wheeled away in their own wheelchairs!

In fact, since we're treating uninsured people like garbage we should just dump thier bodies in a big landfill. That should save the taxpayers a bundle!

peacepipe

01-09-2011, 03:07 PM

Brew it's because defense is mandated in the constitution while healthcare isn't. It's more something IMO that should be done at the state level. Or even city/county level. Feds shouldn't have to do it.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

seems to me that these regulations in HCR make it uniform accross the country.

Play2win

01-09-2011, 04:10 PM

seems to me that these regulations in HCR make it uniform accross the country.

HCR is just (imho) the logical extension of the spirit of The Constitution and what the Framers were trying to do back then. With time, many things change, technology evolves and the needs of both the nation and its citizens evolve.

cutthemdown

01-09-2011, 09:12 PM

As long as you volunteer to:

1) take away and bury the corpses of people denied medical care due to no money/insurance

2) explain to their families that they deserved to die because they had no money or insurance

But when it comes to carrying them away and burying them, don't worry. Many of them are sure to be children and they are light and easy to carry. Plus some of them will be disabled and can be wheeled away in their own wheelchairs!

In fact, since we're treating uninsured people like garbage we should just dump thier bodies in a big landfill. That should save the taxpayers a bundle!

I think burning them up and using the steam to make power for the hospital would work better.

I mean since we are being dramatic for effect.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

01-11-2011, 03:24 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/hc-jihadist.jpg

cutthemdown

01-11-2011, 01:11 PM

LOL how liberals talk about toning down the rhetoric when they are kings of it on this board.

chadta

01-11-2011, 03:29 PM

How do you know that premiums under the plan will be so unaffordable that working-class people will have to sacrifice other necessities? You have no evidence whatsoever supporting this claim.

ok ill get the crayons out for ya

$X = $Y

where X = health premium and Y = whatever you decide to cut

if you only make $20,000 a year, and you need every penny of it, any premiums is going to mean something else is going to have to be cut, not everybody runs a house like the people in the white house, unexpected costs have to be offset by cuts, what part of this is so hard to understand ?

The Lone Bolt

01-11-2011, 04:01 PM

ok ill get the crayons out for ya

$X = $Y

where X = health premium and Y = whatever you decide to cut

if you only make $20,000 a year, and you need every penny of it, any premiums is going to mean something else is going to have to be cut, not everybody runs a house like the people in the white house, unexpected costs have to be offset by cuts, what part of this is so hard to understand ?

The part where you've concluded, without any evidence, that the HC reform plan does nothing to assist those with low incomes.

Subsidies:

* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies.
---------

Medicaid:

* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.

---------
Individual Mandate:

* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

TailgateNut

01-11-2011, 04:36 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/hc-jihadist.jpg

ain't that the truth!

F-ing teapublicans would blow up their own house if they thought it would harm the democrat neighbors dog in the process.

Too damn stupid for their own good.

chadta

01-12-2011, 04:27 AM

The part where you've concluded, without any evidence, that the HC reform plan does nothing to assist those with low incomes.

assist being the key word. you are missing the point entirely my friend, some of these low income people are so close to being unable to pay the bills as it is, anytime you speak for a penny of money thats one less choice they get to make, and its wrong, if a guy cant afford to pay say 100 bucks for health care how are you gonna get a $695 fine out of him ? you cant get blood from a stone

TonyR

01-12-2011, 10:53 AM

Paul Ryan starting to look like a fraud. Sad, I thought maybe he was going to be one of the good guys.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/paul_ryan_and_american_fiscal_policy

peacepipe

01-12-2011, 11:23 AM

BroncoLifer

01-12-2011, 11:25 AM

Paul Ryan starting to look like a fraud. Sad, I thought maybe he was going to be one of the good guys.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/paul_ryan_and_american_fiscal_policy

The credibility of this Economist piece is undermined by the author's claim that Ezra "Journolist" Klein "does a good job" with his analysis. I read the Klein article last week and it is a partisan hack job that ignores facts Klein either doesn't understand or finds inconvenient (including some of the CBO games discussed earlier in this thread).

TonyR

01-12-2011, 11:27 AM

Are you serious?

I know, fool me once...

TonyR

01-12-2011, 11:28 AM

The credibility of this Economist piece is undermined by...

You'll need to do a better job of arguing the points of this article than that...

BroncoLifer

01-12-2011, 11:36 AM

You'll need to do a better job of arguing the points of this article than that...

No, not true. My point is fully made: The author thinks Ezra Klein did a good job with his analysis. Klein's analysis is in fact quite poor. Ergo, I question the author's ability to critically answer his question "What should be made of Mr Ryan’s rhetoric?"

TonyR

01-12-2011, 12:22 PM

No, not true. My point is fully made: The author thinks Ezra Klein did a good job with his analysis. Klein's analysis is in fact quite poor. Ergo, I question the author's ability to critically answer his question "What should be made of Mr Ryan’s rhetoric?"

I think Klein makes a valid point here:

...as his prominence in the party has risen, he has morphed from a principled fiscal hawk to an old-school "starve the beast" Republican for whom lower taxes always trump deficit reduction. Deficit hawks earn their feathers by championing balanced budgets even when it crosses its own party's priorities; by that standard, Mr Ryan has work to do.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/the_deficit_doesnt_care_what_y.html

peacepipe

01-16-2011, 09:28 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/16/health-care-poll-finds-de_n_809646.html

The poll finds that 40 percent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 percent oppose it. Just after the November congressional elections, opposition stood at 47 percent and support was 38 percent.

As for repeal, only about one in four say they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 percent after the elections to 49 percent now.

Garcia Bronco

01-16-2011, 09:46 AM

HCR is just (imho) the logical extension of the spirit of The Constitution and what the Framers were trying to do back then. With time, many things change, technology evolves and the needs of both the nation and its citizens evolve.

the problem is general welfare can mean many things; we are literally strangling our goverment and its abilities with all these open interpretations.

Garcia Bronco

01-19-2011, 03:56 PM

So the House voted it down today. It won't make it through the Senate nor the Presidency. So there you go. But in 2013 it could come up again.

I am in favor of ditching this legislation and instituting socialized medicine. Make the Doctors and Hospitals state, not federal, employees and let each state run it's own healthcare and gets the Feds out of it.

Rigs11

01-19-2011, 06:32 PM

And some job killing estimates for the righties since they are so so interested in creating jobs. Oh this is from a harvard economist.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/07/hcr-repeal-costs-jobs/

Just as House Republicans gear up to repeal the “job killing” Affordable Care Act, the Department of Labor is reporting that the U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs last month, pushing the jobless rate down to a 19-month low of 9.4 percent.
In fact, since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, 2010, the economy has created approximately a total of 1.1 million new jobs in the private sector. One-fifth of the new jobs — over 200,000 — have been in the health care industry. Nevertheless, Republicans have spent the week decrying health reform as “job killing” legislation. Watch a compilation:
Aside from the fact that increasing access to health services will create thousands of jobs in the health care sector, Harvard economist David Cutler argues in new paper released this morning that repealing the health law would reverse these gains and could destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. Eliminating the law would increase health care costs and cause employers to reduce wages and cut jobs for those employees who already receive minimum wage or are in fixed contracts. From the report:
Figure 3 shows the net impact of repealing health reform on total employment. The baseline estimates show that 250,000 jobs will be lost annually if health reform is repealed. Annual job losses would average 400,000 using the greater estimate of 1.5 percentage point cost increases annually resulting from repeal.