Can the Republicans stop the Democrats?

[Ashmoria]

All i can say is that if it IS hypocrisy I'm happy that the president is willing to be a hypocrite for the good of the country.

It's for the good of the country to force everyone to buy private health insurance or pay a fine? What about the freedom of the individual to choose not to buy health care?

None of the homeless/poor/unemployed people are going to want or be able to pay the fine, (much less health insurance) and with so many people choosing to not pay into this individual mandate the government will not be able to put all of them in jail so I believe this Obamacare will end to be a colossal failure and will be changed/watered down/repealed in the long term.

*sigh*

poor people already get health care. its called medicaid.

lower income but not poor people will have substantial subsidies to get them insurance.

those who refuse to buy insurance need to be gently pushed toward getting it since they will not be denied health care in emergencies. WE are paying for THEIR coverage.

not buying insurance will not be a criminal offense. they wont go to jail for it.

if that is the only thing you dont like about HCR then it is a great bill.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

All i can say is that if it IS hypocrisy I'm happy that the president is willing to be a hypocrite for the good of the country.

It's for the good of the country to force everyone to buy private health insurance or pay a fine? What about the freedom of the individual to choose not to buy health care?

None of the homeless/poor/unemployed people are going to want or be able to pay the fine, (much less health insurance) and with so many people choosing to not pay into this individual mandate the government will not be able to put all of them in jail so I believe this Obamacare will end to be a colossal failure and will be changed/watered down/repealed in the long term.

How is it for the good of the country to force everyone to pay taxes or face a fine? What about the freedom of the individual to choose not to pay taxes and receive government services?

None of the homeless/poor/unemployed people are going to want or be able to pay the fine, (much less their taxes) and with so many people choosing not to pay these taxes, the government will not be able to put all of them in jail so I believe these "taxes" will end to be a colossal failure and will be changed/watered down/repealed in the long term.

[Saiwania]

None of the homeless/poor/unemployed people are going to want or be able to pay the fine, (much less their taxes) and with so many people choosing not to pay these taxes, the government will not be able to put all of them in jail so I believe these "taxes" will end to be a colossal failure and will be changed/watered down/repealed in the long term.

Cute. Manipulating my opposition against mandated health care to me being opposed to taxes. Only this is not purely a taxpayer funded entitlement. This is in my view, mainly about forcing as many people as possible to buy private health insurance as a boon to the industry with no public option, and what about the fact it could bankrupt the country down the road? It allegedly costs $1 trillion now, but who knows how much it's costs will explode in say 10-15 years?

[The_pantless_hero]

None of the homeless/poor/unemployed people are going to want or be able to pay the fine, (much less their taxes) and with so many people choosing not to pay these taxes, the government will not be able to put all of them in jail so I believe these "taxes" will end to be a colossal failure and will be changed/watered down/repealed in the long term.

Cute. Manipulating my opposition against mandated health care to me being opposed to taxes. Only this is not purely a taxpayer funded entitlement. This is in my view, mainly about forcing as many people as possible to buy private health insurance as a boon to the industry with no public option, and what about the fact it could bankrupt the country down the road? It allegedly costs $1 trillion now, but who knows how much it's costs will explode in say 10-15 years?

Are you proposing that without performing these actions the cost of healthcare won't increase?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

None of the homeless/poor/unemployed people are going to want or be able to pay the fine, (much less their taxes) and with so many people choosing not to pay these taxes, the government will not be able to put all of them in jail so I believe these "taxes" will end to be a colossal failure and will be changed/watered down/repealed in the long term.

Cute. Manipulating my opposition against mandated health care to me being opposed to taxes.

You catch on pretty quickly.

Only this is not purely a taxpayer funded entitlement.

Who else is funding it? Why is that a bad thing?

This is in my view, mainly about forcing as many people as possible to buy private health insurance as a boon to the industry with no public option,

Saying you want a public option to go along with a mandate is much different from saying a mandate will bankrupt everyone and the whole country.

and what about the fact it could bankrupt the country down the road?

No, doing nothing will bankrupt the country down the road.

It allegedly costs $1 trillion now, but who knows how much it's costs will explode in say 10-15 years?

The CBO seems to know a lot better than you do. According to them, it will REDUCE the budget deficit over 10 years.

[Peterbolton]

Source=Fox News
Me=

[Saiwania]

Saying you want a public option to go along with a mandate is much different from saying a mandate will bankrupt everyone and the whole country.

I'm saying I don't want a mandate for people to buy insurance at all. I'd rather it be a two tiered system where one is government provided coverage citizens get by default or private healthcare for those who choose to opt out.

No, doing nothing will bankrupt the country down the road.

I argue that the bill as currently written, will cause premiums to rise even higher than with keeping to the status quo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04327.html

The CBO seems to know a lot better than you do. According to them, it will REDUCE the budget deficit over 10 years.

I disagree on the grounds that the bill has several budget gimmicks in it which will hide the true cost and that it is merely an estimate that will not reflect the true cost which will likely end up being more expensive in the long term. Social Security was believed to always be able to remain solvent yet now it is so far into the red.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/ ... -trillion/

[The_pantless_hero]

I argue that the bill as currently written, will cause premiums to rise even higher than with keeping to the status quo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04327.html

1) The CBO disagrees.
2) Do people with cancer/asthma/heart disease/osteoporosis/etc not catch the flu/cold/URI/common viral infection/common bacterial infection/etc? Because that is what your argument proposes. It is America's already shitty treatment and upkeep of general health that got us into this mess.

The CBO seems to know a lot better than you do. According to them, it will REDUCE the budget deficit over 10 years.

I disagree on the grounds that the bill has several budget gimmicks in it which will hide the true cost and that it is merely an estimate that will not reflect the true cost which will likely end up being more expensive in the long term. Social Security was believed to always be able to remain solvent yet now it is so far into the red.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/ ... -trillion/

So for some reason, a third-party right-wing think tank knows better what gimmicks and hidden tricks are in the bill than the Congressional Budget Office? Color me unconvinced.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

I argue that the bill as currently written, will cause premiums to rise even higher than with keeping to the status quo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04327.html

1) The CBO disagrees.
2) Do people with cancer/asthma/heart disease/osteoporosis/etc not catch the flu/cold/URI/common viral infection/common bacterial infection/etc? Because that is what your argument proposes. It is America's already shitty treatment and upkeep of general health that got us into this mess.

The CBO seems to know a lot better than you do. According to them, it will REDUCE the budget deficit over 10 years.

I disagree on the grounds that the bill has several budget gimmicks in it which will hide the true cost and that it is merely an estimate that will not reflect the true cost which will likely end up being more expensive in the long term. Social Security was believed to always be able to remain solvent yet now it is so far into the red.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/ ... -trillion/

So for some reason, a third-party right-wing think tank knows better what gimmicks and hidden tricks are in the bill than the Congressional Budget Office? Color me unconvinced.

Let's look at history, then. The CBO has never been right. They estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion. They predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.

Why are they right now?

[The_pantless_hero]

Let's look at history, then. The CBO has never been right. They estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion. They predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.

Why are they right now?

Because the CBO is the drum the right-wing likes to beat when it favors them.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Let's look at history, then. The CBO has never been right. They estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion. They predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.

Why are they right now?

Because the CBO is the drum the right-wing likes to beat when it favors them.

Just so long as that satisfies you... But that's still the weakest answer I've seen in years.

[Saiwania]

*nods in approval with Les Drapeaux Brulants*
Believe what you'd like, but if this bill passes reconciliation and everyone is pissed off when it turns out to be a major failure in implementation and cost, I will say 'I told you so'

[Farnhamia]

*nods in approval with Les Drapeaux Brulants*
Believe what you'd like, but if this bill passes reconciliation and everyone is pissed off when it turns out to be a major failure in implementation and cost, I will say 'I told you so'

I suppose we could always just do nothing.

[The_pantless_hero]

Let's look at history, then. The CBO has never been right. They estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion. They predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.

Why are they right now?

Because the CBO is the drum the right-wing likes to beat when it favors them.

Just so long as that satisfies you... But that's still the weakest answer I've seen in years.

My booster argument is that the Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank and has even LESS believability than the CBO.

[Cannot think of a name]

Republicans Plan Anti-Health Care Reform 'Blitz' as Democrats Regain Footing
By Judson Berger
- FOXNews.com

As Democrats in Congress prepare to shut Republicans out of the health care debate by triggering the "nuclear option" to pass legislation,

Not the 'nuclear option.' The 'nuclear option' was what the Republicans wanted to do because a handful of judges were not being confirmed. It would have been a point of order objection to the filibuster that would have lead to straight vote to end the filibuster all together.

What is being proposed is a commonly used procedure to reconcile budgetary measures in a bills that have already passed in both houses. There is nothing 'nuclear' about it.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Let's look at history, then. The CBO has never been right. They estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion. They predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.

Why are they right now?

Because the CBO is the drum the right-wing likes to beat when it favors them.

Just so long as that satisfies you... But that's still the weakest answer I've seen in years.

My booster argument is that the Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank and has even LESS believability than the CBO.

Back to the point, though, Paul Ryan did say it best at the health care summit when he said that "...hiding spending doesn't reduce spending." The taxes that are collected before services are paid for, the cuts in Medicare, and the other gimmicks are properly accounted for, the ten year cost is more like $2.1 billion. No deficit reduction there. As I read further in the transcript, I see that neither Obama, nor the Democrats had a response to that. What say you?

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, NSG, will the Republicans anti-Obamacare blitz stop the Democrats from forcing through an unwanted healthcare bill

A bill the Republicans made unwanted, you mean?

People generally support ideas like covering more people, and providing a public option.

It was trying to satisfy Republican complaints that turned the bill into the red-headed stepchild no one wants to be blamed for.

[Grave_n_idle]

Let's look at history, then. The CBO has never been right. They estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion. They predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.

Why are they right now?

Because the CBO is the drum the right-wing likes to beat when it favors them.

Just so long as that satisfies you... But that's still the weakest answer I've seen in years.

My booster argument is that the Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank and has even LESS believability than the CBO.

Back to the point, though, Paul Ryan did say it best at the health care summit when he said that "...hiding spending doesn't reduce spending." The taxes that are collected before services are paid for, the cuts in Medicare, and the other gimmicks are properly accounted for, the ten year cost is more like $2.1 billion. No deficit reduction there. As I read further in the transcript, I see that neither Obama, nor the Democrats had a response to that. What say you?

Well, obviously - the data from a non-partisan agency is going to be less objective than the data from an ideologically motivated partisan group.

[Cameroi]

the real question is can the democrats stop republicans from destroying what little is left of america.

[Khorata]

If they are going to keep being like this, I may know what it would be in the next election. Communists vs. Democrats. But I think they won't because of why? The Democrat's are in power.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Let's look at history, then. The CBO has never been right. They estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion. They predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.

Why are they right now?

Because the CBO is the drum the right-wing likes to beat when it favors them.

Just so long as that satisfies you... But that's still the weakest answer I've seen in years.

My booster argument is that the Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank and has even LESS believability than the CBO.

Back to the point, though, Paul Ryan did say it best at the health care summit when he said that "...hiding spending doesn't reduce spending." The taxes that are collected before services are paid for, the cuts in Medicare, and the other gimmicks are properly accounted for, the ten year cost is more like $2.1 billion. No deficit reduction there. As I read further in the transcript, I see that neither Obama, nor the Democrats had a response to that. What say you?

Well, obviously - the data from a non-partisan agency is going to be less objective than the data from an ideologically motivated partisan group.

As I said, there was virtually no rebuttal to those points. The CBO can only estimate with the data that it has been given. Just like a computer, garbage in -- garbage out. If the Democrats are going to insist on double counting savings, delaying the provision of services for 6 years, while collecting taxes for 10, of course the CBO numbers will look favorable.

Incidentally, here's the relevant portion of the transcript. Note that Obama avoids the issue and starts in on whether or not Republicans "like" Medicare Advantage -- only he refers to them as "your side". That's a little too partisan for a bi-partisan effort. Should we not be talking about what's good for the people, rather than what's good for our "side"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04074.html

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

As I said, there was virtually no rebuttal to those points. The CBO can only estimate with the data that it has been given. Just like a computer, garbage in -- garbage out. If the Democrats are going to insist on double counting savings,

The CBO already addressed that.

delaying the provision of services for 6 years, while collecting taxes for 10, of course the CBO numbers will look favorable.

The CBO said it will reduce the deficit over 10 years. You know what the deficit is right?

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

As I said, there was virtually no rebuttal to those points. The CBO can only estimate with the data that it has been given. Just like a computer, garbage in -- garbage out. If the Democrats are going to insist on double counting savings,

The CBO already addressed that.

delaying the provision of services for 6 years, while collecting taxes for 10, of course the CBO numbers will look favorable.

The CBO said it will reduce the deficit over 10 years. You know what the deficit is right?

I don't see any statement in there that contradicts my complaint about the garbage that the CBO was given to estimate.

First off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. There's one gimmick.

Next, take a look at the Medicare cuts, the bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank. $500 Billion is taken from Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency AND also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting. Another gimmick.

Then, there's the "doc fix" thing... That's been removed because the cost was too embarassing -- about $370 billion.

Last, the chief Medicare actuary states that the cost curve is bending up. That adds another $222 billion to the program.

When you get rid of all the gimmicks that were placed in front of the CBO, the full 10- year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

But you know better...

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

First off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. There's one gimmick.

The CBO said it will reduce the deficit over 10 years. You know what the deficit is right?

Next, take a look at the Medicare cuts, the bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank. $500 Billion is taken from Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

Health care costs money? I'm shocked. The CBO also knows this, and accounted for this in its analysis? You're about to give me a heart attack.

You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency AND also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting. Another gimmick.

Which the CBO already accounted for.

Then, there's the "doc fix" thing... That's been removed because the cost was too embarassing -- about $370 billion.

Then it's not really relevant, is it?

Last, the chief Medicare actuary states that the cost curve is bending up. That adds another $222 billion to the program.

Ummmmm... no. He estimated it might add $234 billion to the total cost of health care in the whole country over 10 years. Compared to the $35.5 trillion this country will spend on health care over the next 10 years, that number is actually astonishingly small if one considers that the CBO estimates that coverage will expand (incidentally, so does Richard Foster, that is why he thinks costs will rise) and deficits will fall. But if you have more lies that you'd like to throw into the debate, please feel free to do so.

When you get rid of all the gimmicks that were placed in front of the CBO, the full 10- year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

But you know better...

No, the CBO knows better.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

No, the CBO knows better.

The CBO has not accounted for the misleading conditions under which it was required to estimate costs and savings. That's the point. They are given garbage and anything they produce is bound to be in error. Historically, they have always estimated entitlement programs wrong. Usually by anywhere between 2 and 10 times. And those estimates have always been on the low side, meaning we always pay more for the program than was estimated at it's inception.

If you want to ignore history, be assured you rest in good company -- that's what Congress expects from us.