US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Milks Empire]

In my world - even by doctors - it is held up as evidence of 'what happens when you let a nigger in the whitehouse'. In my world, it is used as evidence of how Democrats want to kill veterans and old people, and to deny coverage to Republicans.

A nigger really man how racist is that, two I think if the democrats want to do that more people would be against it then they are now.

If you put that snippet back into the rest of GnI's post, he clearly states that this is what he hears and that he thinks it's old, tired bullshit.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because doctors are obviously all apolitical and none have idiotic right-wing agendas or arn't whipping boys for capitalism and don't give a shit about anything but the next dollar.
The relevant point is that major medical unions (ie, groups of doctors and nurses) want healthcare reform.

That's my point.

If someone tells me they asked 6 doctors 'in the real world', and thus they don't need any other 'evidence' - well, taking anecdotal evidence like that where I live would not be representative of the general mood of doctors, at all.

Something worth considering for those about to appeal to anecdote - and the reason why anecdotes are not a source that is smiled upon.

[Grave_n_idle]

In my world - even by doctors - it is held up as evidence of 'what happens when you let a nigger in the whitehouse'. In my world, it is used as evidence of how Democrats want to kill veterans and old people, and to deny coverage to Republicans.

A nigger really man how racist is that, two I think if the democrats want to do that more people would be against it then they are now.

If you put that snippet back into the rest of GnI's post, he clearly states that this is what he hears and that he thinks it's old, tired bullshit.

Exactly.

[Greed and Death]

In my world - even by doctors - it is held up as evidence of 'what happens when you let a nigger in the whitehouse'. In my world, it is used as evidence of how Democrats want to kill veterans and old people, and to deny coverage to Republicans.

Because doctors are obviously all apolitical and none have idiotic right-wing agendas or arn't whipping boys for capitalism and don't give a shit about anything but the next dollar.
The relevant point is that major medical unions (ie, groups of doctors and nurses) want healthcare reform.

That's because they got what they want out of the deal.
Put back in the clause about them receiving only medicare reimbursement and those same groups would come out against the bill.

If you asked 6 doctors in my world, what they thought about Obamacare, they'd give you horrible answers, ranging from simple denial of healthcare, to seizure of the reins of power by communists and muslims.

There is no account for idiots.


On a related note, there is at least one politician I have to give respect to: Roland Burris

The Illinois Democrat, appointed by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, says he'll only vote for a bill to provide health care to millions more Americans as long as it allows the government to sell insurance in competition with private insurers.

And he says he won't compromise.

The only one with really nothing to lose is the only one with any balls it seems. Even if it is solely out of spite.

He knows his chances to win election are slim unless he makes a big name for himself and fast.

[Surote]

In my world - even by doctors - it is held up as evidence of 'what happens when you let a nigger in the whitehouse'. In my world, it is used as evidence of how Democrats want to kill veterans and old people, and to deny coverage to Republicans.

A nigger really man how racist is that, two I think if the democrats want to do that more people would be against it then they are now.

If you put that snippet back into the rest of GnI's post, he clearly states that this is what he hears and that he thinks it's old, tired bullshit.

Oh my bad

[Liuzzo]

This is the CBO preliminary report on the economic effects in the house bill with a public option. Looks good so far

CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit


A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.

CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option -- one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.

At a meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday night, Pelosi did not release CBO's preliminary numbers, but told members that CBO told leaders the House bill would cost well below $900 billion. Aides say final CBO numbers could be released on Wednesday.

Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.

Pelosi instructed House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, to begin canvassing all House Democrats on Wednesday to determine whether this bill had enough votes to pass in the House. According to several sources in the meeting, Pelosi acknowledged she did not currently have the 218 votes needed to pass this version on the House floor, but believed she was close to having around 200 votes.

Moderate, "blue dog" Democrats in the House largely oppose the robust public option and instead argue for a government run insurance option that could negotiate reimbursement rates directly with doctors and hospitals. CBO's analysis of that approach was not available according to Democratic sources, but aides say the preliminary analysis shows it does not save as much as the approach pushed by Pelosi.[quote][/quote]

[Lunatic Goofballs]

This is fun: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ment-cuts/

So after all their bitching and moaning about Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, all Republicans (and 13 Democrats) have voted to cut Medicare. Isn't that nice?

[Grave_n_idle]

This is fun: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ment-cuts/

So after all their bitching and moaning about Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, all Republicans (and 13 Democrats) have voted to cut Medicare. Isn't that nice?

Did anyone actually believe that the Republicans were not just using medicare as an avenue to attack health reform?

I suppose true colours are on display now. I don't recall Fox mentioning this. It must have slipped their minds.

[The Scandinvans]

This is fun: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ment-cuts/

So after all their bitching and moaning about Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, all Republicans (and 13 Democrats) have voted to cut Medicare. Isn't that nice?

Did anyone actually believe that the Republicans were not just using medicare as an avenue to attack health reform?

I suppose true colours are on display now. I don't recall Fox mentioning this. It must have slipped their minds.

The main flaw to provide greater state intervention inside of economics is that Keynesian Economics has logical fallacies. The main flaw being that government cannot generate economic stimulus by providing for a change in aggregate demand. Namely, there is mainly a flow of cash from one part to another. Therefore, one of the better arguments is that the plan for government intervention in health care will do economic harm in the long term and most likely decrease the quality of health care quality for those who currently have it.

[Sibirsky]

This is the CBO preliminary report on the economic effects in the house bill with a public option. Looks good so far

CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit


A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.

CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option -- one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.

At a meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday night, Pelosi did not release CBO's preliminary numbers, but told members that CBO told leaders the House bill would cost well below $900 billion. Aides say final CBO numbers could be released on Wednesday.

Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.

Pelosi instructed House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, to begin canvassing all House Democrats on Wednesday to determine whether this bill had enough votes to pass in the House. According to several sources in the meeting, Pelosi acknowledged she did not currently have the 218 votes needed to pass this version on the House floor, but believed she was close to having around 200 votes.

Moderate, "blue dog" Democrats in the House largely oppose the robust public option and instead argue for a government run insurance option that could negotiate reimbursement rates directly with doctors and hospitals. CBO's analysis of that approach was not available according to Democratic sources, but aides say the preliminary analysis shows it does not save as much as the approach pushed by Pelosi.

The CBO? A government office that does estimates? Because they are really good at estimating costs? Let's look at their track record!

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”
Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.
Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.
Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.
Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.
SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

In the best case, they were off 2.5 to 1. In the worst case they were off by a degree of 17 to 1. Using these numbers the actual cost of the program could be anywhere from $2,177.5 billion to $14,807 billion. Also, because they are so good at estimating cost, why would I want anyone else to handle my healthcare? I mean really!

[Sibirsky]

This is fun: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ment-cuts/

So after all their bitching and moaning about Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, all Republicans (and 13 Democrats) have voted to cut Medicare. Isn't that nice?

Did anyone actually believe that the Republicans were not just using medicare as an avenue to attack health reform?

I suppose true colours are on display now. I don't recall Fox mentioning this. It must have slipped their minds.

The main flaw to provide greater state intervention inside of economics is that Keynesian Economics has logical fallacies. The main flaw being that government cannot generate economic stimulus by providing for a change in aggregate demand. Namely, there is mainly a flow of cash from one part to another. Therefore, one of the better arguments is that the plan for government intervention in health care will do economic harm in the long term and most likely decrease the quality of health care quality for those who currently have it.

If by economic harm you mean increase costs you are correct. You are also correct on the declining quality of care. If by economic harm you mean harm to the overall economy, not just healthcare costs you are, still correct.

[Surote]

The repubs don't like the public option cause there business puppets tell them not to vote for it cause it will hurt the business wallet. Plus I support the moderate plan not the liberal plan.

[Sibirsky]

The repubs don't like the public option cause there business puppets tell them not to vote for it cause it will hurt the business wallet. Plus I support the moderate plan not the liberal plan.

What is the moderate plan? The liberal plan will cause 45% of doctors to retire, increasing wait times. And taxing "Cadillac" plans will increase costs. At this time it is $8000 for an individual (annually) and $21000/family. However, without ANY doubt these rates will rise with the rise of inflation not healthcare. Meaning, like the alternative minimum tax, it will effect more and more people, causing more and more people to drop coverage and join the public option. It is a disaster in the making. Again, what is the moderate plan?

[Surote]

The repubs don't like the public option cause there business puppets tell them not to vote for it cause it will hurt the business wallet. Plus I support the moderate plan not the liberal plan.

What is the moderate plan? The liberal plan will cause 45% of doctors to retire, increasing wait times. And taxing "Cadillac" plans will increase costs. At this time it is $8000 for an individual (annually) and $21000/family. However, without ANY doubt these rates will rise with the rise of inflation not healthcare. Meaning, like the alternative minimum tax, it will effect more and more people, causing more and more people to drop coverage and join the public option. It is a disaster in the making. Again, what is the moderate plan?

They have a trigger which pretty much says they will give the Corps a certain amount of time to reform and if the people don't like it then a public option is activated.

[Tech-gnosis]

The liberal plan will cause 45% of doctors to retire

Bullshit.

And taxing "Cadillac" plans will increase costs.

For those with with Cadillac plans

Meaning, like the alternative minimum tax, it will effect more and more people, causing more and more people to drop coverage and join the public option.

How horrible.

[Sibirsky]

The liberal plan will cause 45% of doctors to retire

Bullshit.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=506199
http://www.libertysarmy.com/2009/10/01/ ... -quitting/
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=80740
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/stor ... -congress/

And taxing "Cadillac" plans will increase costs.

For those with with Cadillac plans

Meaning, like the alternative minimum tax, it will effect more and more people, causing more and more people to drop coverage and join the public option.

How horrible.

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

Which is why 100% of economists oppose the public option.

[Grave_n_idle]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

[Sibirsky]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

[Treznor]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Way to move the goalposts.

We're looking at an overall view of healthcare and costs, not specifics. The question at hand is whether or not overall health is improved by ensuring everyone gets medical care when they need it? The answer, according to every measurable criteria, is "yes." National systems, whether or not they outlaw private health insurance, meet the overall needs of the people better than strictly private health insurance systems.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Right, because no country with socialized medicine has a comparable cancer survival rate.



Forget the UK, let's do the Swedish model.

[Grave_n_idle]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Why do you look at the survival rate? Why ignore the fact that something about America is causing a much higher incidence in the first place?

[Sibirsky]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Way to move the goalposts.

We're looking at an overall view of healthcare and costs, not specifics. The question at hand is whether or not overall health is improved by ensuring everyone gets medical care when they need it? The answer, according to every measurable criteria, is "yes." National systems, whether or not they outlaw private health insurance, meet the overall needs of the people better than strictly private health insurance systems.

The plan does not insure everybody. The plan does not address costs. In fact it increases cost of private plans. The plan fails in almost every criteria.

[Sibirsky]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Why do you look at the survival rate? Why ignore the fact that something about America is causing a much higher incidence in the first place?

Oh I am not sure. Is this fact? Incidents of caner are higher here?

[Grave_n_idle]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Way to move the goalposts.

We're looking at an overall view of healthcare and costs, not specifics. The question at hand is whether or not overall health is improved by ensuring everyone gets medical care when they need it? The answer, according to every measurable criteria, is "yes." National systems, whether or not they outlaw private health insurance, meet the overall needs of the people better than strictly private health insurance systems.

The plan does not insure everybody. The plan does not address costs. In fact it increases cost of private plans. The plan fails in almost every criteria.

Which 'plan'?

I think it's funny that people can be discussing all the faults of a bill that doesn't have a unified version, yet. I think it's even more funny that they can discuss the faults in a bill that has been constantly dismantled by it's opponents.

That's not the 'humourous' funny, though - it's the 'ew, this tastes funny' kind of funny.