Health Care Reform - Universal/Public Option

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

$20,000 to turn it on? I wonder why it costs that much. I think the $1 million number might be higher, btw. That doesn't include creating the space for it either and the people to run it.

Tried to google it and didn't come up with any specifics. A few articles that simply state that they are "expensive to run".

This article states $2 million for an MRI machine, and states that the US has 3 times as many MRI machines per person than England or France, and 4 times as many per person than Canada. Japan is the only nation with more per person. http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/...upting-america

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Tried to google it and didn't come up with any specifics. A few articles that simply state that they are "expensive to run".

This article states $2 million for an MRI machine, and states that the US has 3 times as many MRI machines per person than England or France, and 4 times as many per person than Canada. Japan is the only nation with more per person. The Machine That's Bankrupting America | The Big Money

Interesting, It just seems we aren't dealing with the real roots of health care and applying a band-aid situation to the problem. I wonder how much the cost increases are to the fact that we have all of these billion-dollar drugs (in terms of R&D), these multi-million treatments (cancer), insanely expensive tech. I'm guessing the research and development (I'm talking in terms of getting it to the market) of this stuff has increase much higher than any rate in history.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Tried to google it and didn't come up with any specifics. A few articles that simply state that they are "expensive to run".

This article states $2 million for an MRI machine, and states that the US has 3 times as many MRI machines per person than England or France, and 4 times as many per person than Canada. Japan is the only nation with more per person. The Machine That's Bankrupting America | The Big Money

We have more because we have more private facilities who own them and abuse them. For instance, a doctor who owns an MRI machine is 4 times more likely to order a scan. That is a sign of abuse that is driving up costs. The threat of lawsuit is also great and we have doctors who prefer to play it too safe.

The whole system is a mess and I just don't know how you can fix it. Doctors are pushing to get as much as they can out of you, insurance companies are trying to get the most out of you while skimping doctors, while the lawyers are out there fucking over doctors who then fuck us all in return. Everyone has their hand in the cookie jar and the average person is the one getting fucked.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Interesting, It just seems we aren't dealing with the real roots of health care and applying a band-aid situation to the problem. I wonder how much the cost increases are to the fact that we have all of these billion-dollar drugs (in terms of R&D), these multi-million treatments (cancer), insanely expensive tech. I'm guessing the research and development (I'm talking in terms of getting it to the market) of this stuff has increase much higher than any rate in history.

I agree that this is a band-aid. It doesn't even begin to get to the root of the problem.

I think the increase of costs are partly technology, but also in large part that doctors, insurance companies, and lawyers have lobbied our politicians so hard that the system is rigged against the consumer. Creating a true free market for insurance and prescription drugs would drastically lower the costs. Monitoring doctors who abuse their powers to bill for unnecessary treatments would lower costs. And not allowing lawyers to sue for a gazillion dollar every time a doctor makes a judgement call would lower costs.

But those groups own our government (and a lot of dumb people). That is the problem. Until that is fixed, we'll get these band-aid solutions because politicians are too pussy to actually stand up to these industries.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Should be an exciting weekend vote, lets see if the Dems can keep all 60 together. Disappointed about the LA bribe though.

To be fair, that bribe number isn't accurate. Landrieu has already admitted it was $300 million dollars that was offered, not $100 million.

Dana Milbank - Sweeteners for the South

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

To be fair, that bribe number isn't accurate. Landrieu has already admitted it was $300 million dollars that was offered, not $100 million.

Dana Milbank - Sweeteners for the South

Yeah, I saw that. But you know, how often would Landrieu (and a state like LA) have the leverage she currently has? I guess she was just looking out for LA which is what she was elected to do.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, I saw that. But you know, how often would Landrieu (and a state like LA) have the leverage she currently has? I guess she was just looking out for LA which is what she was elected to do.

Which is fine provided she shuts up about fiscal responsibility.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Which is fine provided she shuts up about fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. She becomes yet another politician who now has the face they hypocritical nature of her comments when compared to her votes.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, I saw that. But you know, how often would Landrieu (and a state like LA) have the leverage she currently has? I guess she was just looking out for LA which is what she was elected to do.

Wow. You don't get it at all do you?

[JPhillips]

More centrist principles. This was on Lincoln's website as of last night.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Wow. You don't get it at all do you?

Still waiting patiently for your healthcare analysis/solution. Hard to debate against one liners without context.

[RainMaker]

Louisiana is a welfare state. She got more welfare for it. Not sure I can blame her.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

More centrist principles. This was on Lincoln's website as of last night.

Just curious, what does "quality, affordable" healthcare mean? This is what drives me nuts. No such concept exists. When cancer treatments cost in the six-to-seven figures, when MRI machines cost $2 million alone, when proton cancer centers cost up to $200 million just to build, when drug research and development costs up to a $1 billion to bring to the market (not counting the failures), and so on, we need to get realistic. Even if you went to a full-blown universal health care system, we have to get real about the costs of the actual resources we use. We want/demand the best, but we don't want to pay for it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Just curious, what does "quality, affordable" healthcare mean? This is what drives me nuts. No such concept exists. When cancer treatments cost in the six-to-seven figures, when MRI machines cost $2 million alone, when proton cancer centers cost up to $200 million just to build, when drug research and development costs up to a $1 billion to bring to the market (not counting the failures), and so on, we need to get realistic. Even if you went to a full-blown universal health care system, we have to get real about the costs of the actual resources we use. We want/demand the best, but we don't want to pay for it.

That's what infuriates me about the GOP Medicare stance. They are now against any reductions in Medicare spending for any reason. It's clear that Medicare will bankrupt us if not changed, but it's more politically expedient to scare the hell out of seniors.

Better work on my Mandarin.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Still waiting patiently for your healthcare analysis/solution. Hard to debate against one liners without context.

I've posted in this thread dozens of times much more then one liners.

All this 'reform' is going to do is generate huge deficit spending.

Just look at what they had to give away to get this bill to the floor. You seem to think that it's acceptable to give a Senator a $300 million dollar gift for her vote. Now that you've given her $300 million - how many more billions for the others who are going to demand you pay for their vote.

Somehow a legislative body that is willing to pay $300 million for a single vote has the ability to reform health care in an affordable fashion? Please, this is just Congress and the government looking to gain power by controlling another huge percentage of the economy.

Maybe you'll like being in China's pocket when they own trillions of our debt, I'd prefer not to be.

The system is far from perfect and needs changes, but these bills are just a milestone on the road to economic ruin.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Just curious, what does "quality, affordable" healthcare mean? .

Exactly, that goal is impossible. It can either by quality or it can be inexpensive. It can't be both.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Better work on my Mandarin.

I had a pretty good laugh after that line. Well done.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I had a pretty good laugh after that line. Well done.

谢谢你的客气话

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

谢谢你的客气话

No thanks. I've never been a fan of fortune cookies.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Except of course, the CBO has scored both the House & Senate bills as being revenue neutral and that in the long run, they'll actually bring down the deficit. There's also the simple fact that despite all the OMGZ complaints about this bill, it's still 1/7 the size of the yearly defense budget that's passed without question every single year.

As for quality & affordable, most of the civilized world has figured it's out. None of it's perfect, but they get better outcomes for less cost. Could it be that part where billions aren't going into profits for an entire sector of health care spending that has no actual value?

+18 gazillion

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

$20,000 to turn it on?

"Turn it on" is a common phrase when discussing expensive technology that doesn't literally mean it costs $X to flip the switch. What they probably mean is that once you flip that switch, you've just committed to $X in electricity costs, $Y in operator costs (i.e. salary), $Z in insurance, $A in other staff, etc....

This is why it's sometimes cheaper to run the machine 3 days a week but 14 hours a day as opposed to 5 days a week but 8 hours a day.

[Arles]

A very partisan, but informative, story on the WSJ opinion page about this health care bill. Here are some parts from it:

The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill - WSJ.com

[RainMaker]

When this passes, how long do I have with my parents before they are shipped off to death camps?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When this passes, how long do I have with my parents before they are shipped off to death camps?

Comments like this show just how unwilling supporters of this bill are to have an honest debate about the real concerns surrounding this bill. It's much easier to use the 'kook of the month' catch phrase than to truly discuss the actual merits/downfalls of the legislation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Comments like this show just how unwilling supporters of this bill are to have an honest debate about the real concerns surrounding this bill.

We tried to have an honest debate, but opponents of health care reform brought up "death camps." Where was your outrage then?

It's much easier to use scare tactics than to truly discuss the actual merits/downfalls of the legislation.

Fixed for those who forget exactly how this "debate" began.

Yet again you want Obama/Democrats to reach out and find common ground with groups not only diametrically opposed to their policy initiatives, but intent on being as obstructionist as possible in this matter. Which reminds me, I must have missed your posts criticizing those who disrupted the town halls this summer and exhorting the GOP in Congress to "have an honest debate about the real concerns surrounding this bill" with Obama & the Democrats. Perhaps you could link to some of your posts on this subject?

[JediKooter]

Welp, this is what we get for them trying to ramrod this thing through as fast as they can. Something this big is not something that gets 'fixed' in a matter of a few months or all at once.

This is something that needs to be implemented in pieces over time. Way to go democrats and republicans, your incompetence is really shining through on this to a T!!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Comments like this show just how unwilling supporters of this bill are to have an honest debate about the real concerns surrounding this bill. It's much easier to use the 'kook of the month' catch phrase than to truly discuss the actual merits/downfalls of the legislation.

The names supporting it seem to have a lot of support in the GOP. Palin, Gingrich, Malkin, Limbaugh, Grassley, and McCain have all more or less gotten behind the death panel talk. I don't really care much about the health care debate as I don't think any of the major problems will ever get fixed in our current system. But stop pretending the death panel stuff was some crazy kook and not the party talking point for a few weeks.

The merits were discussed early on and the debate got turned to death panels, forced abortions, and people dying in our streets because they can't see doctors. You were conveniently missing with your outrage during that time.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Social Security was 'rammed' through. Medicare was 'rammed' through. Plenty of things have been 'rammed' through and worked perfectly fine. As far as the few months thing, we've been working as a party on health care for the last fifty to sixty years. This isn't new stuff. Also, most of the health care bill is phased in over time. The public option doesn't even kick in until 2013.

I wasn't around when either Social Security or Medicare came into being, so I can't really speak to either of those. The 'phasing in' that I am refering to is, let's see if "X" works first before implementing anything else. Not, in 2011 this goes into effect, in 2012 this goes into effect and so on and so on regardless of it actually working. Big difference.

Who is 'we' and what party? 50 to 60 years is not a good sign either (see my incompetence statement).

I believe it is being ramrodded through, things are already being voted on.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Comments like this show just how unwilling supporters of this bill are to have an honest debate about the real concerns surrounding this bill. It's much easier to use the 'kook of the month' catch phrase than to truly discuss the actual merits/downfalls of the legislation.

It's almost more like "kook of the week" at this point.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Really? So, essentially, you want one small chunk passed, wait years to see if it has any effect, then go through this whole mess again to pass another small chunk? If that's how governance happened, literally nothing of consequence would get passed ever.

As far as ramrodded through, yes, votes are happening. That's what happens in Congress when a bill passes through it's committee. But, if you think this is ramrodding something through, please read up on some history. The majority has given too much power and ability to obstruct this bill already.

With something of this 'importance', yes, one piece at a time. Why would you not want to make sure things work before proceeding to the next phase? That is asinine thinking to just keep implementing things that could potentially create more problems than what already exists. If it takes years, then something is seriously wrong with the bill to begin with and should have never even come close to being passed.

Yes, I am aware of how things work in Congress and am well aware of our history. However, this particular bill carries far more significance than most that have come across congresses eyes in recent years. You would think that the smart thing to do would be to think the whole thing out and a few months does not seem like this was well thought out at all. That's just my opinion though.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I've posted in this thread dozens of times much more then one liners.

All this 'reform' is going to do is generate huge deficit spending.

Just look at what they had to give away to get this bill to the floor. You seem to think that it's acceptable to give a Senator a $300 million dollar gift for her vote. Now that you've given her $300 million - how many more billions for the others who are going to demand you pay for their vote.

Somehow a legislative body that is willing to pay $300 million for a single vote has the ability to reform health care in an affordable fashion? Please, this is just Congress and the government looking to gain power by controlling another huge percentage of the economy.

Maybe you'll like being in China's pocket when they own trillions of our debt, I'd prefer not to be.

The system is far from perfect and needs changes, but these bills are just a milestone on the road to economic ruin.

I would appreciate a reference thread # that has your analysis and alternate solution to what is currently being proposed. I apologize if I've not kept up with this entire thread. However, as you are critical of what has been proposed, I would like to understand your alternate solution.

Additionally, Obama and the Dems say their final bill will be deficit neutral (I believe by CBO standards). Sure you had hypothesize and extrapolate all you want etc. and talk about downstream impacts and unintended circumstances ... but what basis do you have if (1) Dems proposes a deficit neutral plan (2) CBO agrees with it?

[lynchjm24]

If you believe the bill is revenue neutral then more power to you.

Let's pretend for a second that the legislation is revenue neutral. What does that mean? That just means that your taxes were raised high enough to cover the cost of the bill. There isn't one thing in the legislation that will actually lower costs.

A public option won't lower anyone's costs. There are two outcomes:

A. They compete on a level playing field with insurers and they spend the same amount of money on care that the private companies do.
B. They legislate the reimbursements to providers, which in turn just causes the providers to go out of business or be bailed out by the government.

The reason why the government can get away with setting low reimbursements on Medicare and Medicaid is because providers get the margin back with private insurers. If they didn't have the ability to negotiate reimbursements above Medicare there wouldn't be a hospital in this country that could keep it's doors open.

Socialized medicine won't work with the population pattern we have in the Western world. Look at how quickly Germany's program is falling apart, and they are supposed to be the envy of the world.

How anyone in the year 2009 thinks that the answer to their problems is the Federal Government is beyond me. The only way to believe that is to turn a blind eye to the history of our Congress and their spending.

[lynchjm24]

By their own calculations, this administration spent $787 billion dollars to 'create or save' 640,000 jobs.

1.2 million dollars per job and it's a good idea to give them trillions of dollars to 'fix' health care?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

By their own calculations, this administration spent $787 billion dollars to 'create or save' 640,000 jobs.

1.2 million dollars per job and it's a good idea to give them trillions of dollars to 'fix' health care?

You really think the $787B was just used to 'create or save" 640,000 jobs. You don't think there was any other benefit to this stimulus?

[RainMaker]

I don't think you can believe any sides numbers anymore when it comes to this stuff.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

If you believe the bill is revenue neutral then more power to you.

Let's pretend for a second that the legislation is revenue neutral. What does that mean? That just means that your taxes were raised high enough to cover the cost of the bill. There isn't one thing in the legislation that will actually lower costs.

A public option won't lower anyone's costs. There are two outcomes:

A. They compete on a level playing field with insurers and they spend the same amount of money on care that the private companies do.
B. They legislate the reimbursements to providers, which in turn just causes the providers to go out of business or be bailed out by the government.

The reason why the government can get away with setting low reimbursements on Medicare and Medicaid is because providers get the margin back with private insurers. If they didn't have the ability to negotiate reimbursements above Medicare there wouldn't be a hospital in this country that could keep it's doors open..

I tend to agree that deficit neutral means it won't save costs (nor increase them). But it will insure an additional 30M+ of uninsured. Pretty good bang for the buck.

Socialized medicine won't work with the population pattern we have in the Western world. Look at how quickly Germany's program is falling apart, and they are supposed to be the envy of the world.

How anyone in the year 2009 thinks that the answer to their problems is the Federal Government is beyond me. The only way to believe that is to turn a blind eye to the history of our Congress and their spending

Never heard about Germany. I use the Canadian solution. Criticize all you want but the vast majority of Canadian certainly prefer theirs over the USs, warts and all.

It is easy to criticize. What is your solution? ...

I would appreciate a reference thread # that has your analysis and alternate solution to what is currently being proposed. I apologize if I've not kept up with this entire thread. However, as you are critical of what has been proposed, I would like to understand your alternate solution.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You really think the $787B was just used to 'create or save" 640,000 jobs. You don't think there was any other benefit to this stimulus?

If it were my administration that spent $787 billion dollars, I wouldn't brag about saving 640,000 jobs, which is exactly what they do on their website.

If there are any other benefits, the people that spent the money haven't pointed them out to us.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I tend to agree that deficit neutral means it won't save costs (nor increase them). But it will insure an additional 30M+ of uninsured. Pretty good bang for the buck.


Never heard about Germany. I use the Canadian solution. Criticize all you want but the vast majority of Canadian certainly prefer theirs over the USs, warts and all.

It is easy to criticize. What is your solution? ...

You think that they are going to insure 30 million people without increasing 'costs'? Maybe if you define costs in a way that doesn't include taxes?

Great for Canada and all. It can't and won't work here, and just because they prefer it, it doesn't make it better.

I don't have a real solution, because there isn't one. I know that wasting 2 trillion dollars is not a solution.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

If it were my administration that spent $787 billion dollars, I wouldn't brag about saving 640,000 jobs, which is exactly what they do on their website.

If there are any other benefits, the people that spent the money haven't pointed them out to us.

One, 40% of the stimulus was in tax cuts. Two, much of the spending hasn't happened yet. Three, yeah the job numbers are silly stupid. Better to stick to GDP changes which have very strong support amongst economists.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

If it were my administration that spent $787 billion dollars, I wouldn't brag about saving 640,000 jobs, which is exactly what they do on their website.

If there are any other benefits, the people that spent the money haven't pointed them out to us.

So you do believe there were other benefits but that recovery.gov did not brag about it? or you beleive there were not any substantial additional benefits?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

You think that they are going to insure 30 million people without increasing 'costs'? Maybe if you define costs in a way that doesn't include taxes?

Great for Canada and all. It can't and won't work here, and just because they prefer it, it doesn't make it better.

I don't have a real solution, because there isn't one. I know that wasting 2 trillion dollars is not a solution.

To clarify, as we were talking about "adding to the deficit", the cost is defined as cost to our deficit.

Why won't it work here?

All this negativity, it won't work, it can't work, it'll add to the deficit, but for you not to offer a solution (or support an alternative) seems pointless ...

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Now, either our government is more horribly run than every other Western nation on Earth or what exactly?

This weekend Congress paid a Senator $300 million dollars for her vote and this is in question?

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To clarify, as we were talking about "adding to the deficit", the cost is defined as cost to our deficit.

Why won't it work here?

All this negativity, it won't work, it can't work, it'll add to the deficit, but for you not to offer a solution (or support an alternative) seems pointless ...

So as long as it doesn't add to the deficit then it doesn't cost anything? That makes a ton of sense.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

So as long as it doesn't add to the deficit then it doesn't cost anything? That makes a ton of sense.

Once again, Obama will not pass a bill that is not deficit neutral. I believe this is by the CBO definition (see post at 8:57pm - sorry, can't see post# in this reply box). I'm not sure where the confusion is?

If it is deficit neutral, by definition, it does not lower/add to our deficit.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Once again, Obama will not pass a bill that is not deficit neutral. I believe this is by the CBO definition (see post at 8:57pm - sorry, can't see post# in this reply box). I'm not sure where the confusion is?

If it is deficit neutral, by definition, it does not lower/add to our deficit.

A. Obama doesn't pass bills.
B. Like I said if you believe the bill is deficit neutral then it makes a little more sense to support it. Maybe the tooth fairy will leave the extra trillions of dollars under Chris Dodd's pillow.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

A. Obama doesn't pass bills.
B. Like I said if you believe the bill is deficit neutral then it makes a little more sense to support it. Maybe the tooth fairy will leave the extra trillions of dollars under Chris Dodd's pillow.

I can see this discussion is going nowhere and will not be a productive discussion. You win.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I can see this discussion is going nowhere and will not be a productive discussion. You win.

You can't have a discussion with someone who thinks that that legislation is deficit neutral. You'll probably 'win' because Congress is going to pass some disgusting tax and spend monstrosity that will further destroy the economy and do nothing to improve anyone's health.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

You can't have a discussion with someone who thinks that that legislation is deficit neutral. You'll probably 'win' because Congress is going to pass some disgusting tax and spend monstrosity that will further destroy the economy and do nothing to improve anyone's health.

Yes, gotcha. You win.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Except of course, every other industrialized country on Earth gets better health outcomes with lower costs than us with "socialized, government-run" health care.

Now, either our government is more horribly run than every other Western nation on Earth or what exactly?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....we have the best health care in the world despite no evidence to back it up. USA! USA!

[Arles]

Here's another article on the total cost of the health care bill - taken through the view on an opponent of the bill (James C. Capretta). It's pretty interesting - basically the plan is completely unsustainable over time. In order to hide this, they do the following:

1. Many of the benefits don't kick in until 2014, but the taxing starts in 2011 - giving three years of revenue taken from tax payers with no real benefit to show.
2. They are banking on cuts to medicare that Reid himself has voted against this year. Even for it to have a chance at not increasing the deficit, $450 billion in cuts to medicare for the first 10 years and $1.9 trillion in the next decade.
3. They are not indexing any of the taxes for inflation, meaning that many that are "for the rich" in 2014 (ie, 200K+) will be slamming the middle class in 2019.
4. No is looking at the cost from 2020 on to sustain this program. Because there are little cost savings in it, as the coverage increases the costs will as well. The nearly $2 trillion in cuts to medicare (as if that would happen) and non-indexed tax increases still won't keep the program afloat by 10-15 years down the road. This will mean even more tax increases.

In the end, this is basically a shell game of the congress getting a 3-4 year head start on taxes before benefits kick in, "promising" to seriously cut medicare and non-indexing any tax hikes for inflation just to have a chance to still falls billions behind their promise (if they vote like Reid has the past 3-4 years).

This plan is unsustainable financially and by the time people realize it, it will be relied upon as the private infrastructure will have been mostly gutted. We're basically going to have another "social security" albatross we can't pay for but can't cut by 2017/2018.

he health-care plan unveiled yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has some in the mainstream media gushing because, on paper at least, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says it will reduce the federal budget deficit by about $130 billion over ten years, and more in the second decade.

But the supposed fiscal prudence of the Reid plan is a complete mirage, for a number of reasons.

For starters, the Reid plan assumes that Medicare physician fees will get cut by about 20 percent beginning in 2011 and then remain very restrained indefinitely. Virtually no one in Congress believes that will happen, nor do they want it to. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, Senator Reid himself tried to overturn the planned cuts in physician fees, at a cost of nearly $250 billion over a decade. It does not matter to taxpayers if Senate Democrats try to pass their health-care agenda in one or two bills. The total cost will be the same. With the so-called “doc fix” included in the tally, the Reid plan would increase the federal budget deficit by about $100 billion over ten years, not reduce it.

Then there are the tax increases. CBO gives Senator Reid credit for cutting the budget deficit in a second decade, but that’s not because the plan would do anything to slow the pace of rising health-care costs. It wouldn’t do much of anything in that regard. What it would do is impose massive tax increases, in part by resorting to the same kind of discredited “bracket creep” so despised by the public in the 1970s. At that time, the thresholds separating the various income-tax brackets were not indexed for inflation, which meant that every year many people paid taxes at a higher rate simply because inflation had boosted their wages. Of course, many in Congress liked it that way because it meant a tax increase without the nuisance of a politically unpopular vote. Senator Reid and his Democratic colleagues are trying to pull off the same trick now. They are proposing two tax increases which would hit America’s middle class increasingly hard over time because the dollar thresholds used to assess the tax are not indexed to full inflation. The first, the 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, would apply initially only to family policies exceeding $23,500 in annual premiums and individual plans with premiums exceeding $8,500. Those thresholds would increase by general inflation plus one percentage point each year, but that would be still below the rate of expected medical inflation. Consequently, more and more middle-class families would find themselves bumping into the premium thresholds as time passed.

Similarly, Senator Reid wants to raise the Medicare payroll tax, now 2.9 percent, on workers with incomes exceeding $200,000 per year, to 3.4 percent. But, again, that income threshold would not be indexed for inflation, which means many millions of families would be paying it in ten years who wouldn’t be paying it initially.

The end result would be a massive overall tax increase. In the first ten years, CBO says it would total nearly $500 billion, which is bad enough. But in the second decade, the tax increase would balloon to about $1.7 trillion, in large part because of the hidden tax hikes associated with bracket creep. Over 20 years, Senate Democrats are thus planning to raise taxes on the American people by about $2.2 trillion.

Even so, this massive tax hike still would not fully cover all of the spending in the Reid plan. According to CBO, the cost of the so-called “coverage provisions” would be about $850 billion over a decade, but that’s only because they wouldn’t kick in until 2014. CBO expects the annual cost of these provisions to grow about 8 percent every year. In the second ten years, the cost would therefore soar to $3.1 trillion.

Senator Reid’s bill also includes numerous other spending provisions which the press dutifully excludes from the reported total. These are mainly relatively small demonstration programs or tweaks to existing programs buried in Medicare and Medicaid. But because there are so many of them, their cost adds up. Overall, CBO expects these non-coverage spending items to total about $90 billion over the period 2010 to 2019, which pushes the total cost of the Reid plan to $940 billion over ten years — above the $900 billion limit the president said he would impose. Throw in the “doc fix,” and Senate Democrats are planning to spend nearly $1.2 trillion on their health-care agenda.

Finally, there are the Medicare cuts. Despite all of the talk of “delivery system reform,” the Senate Democratic plan would not transform American medicine to make it more efficient. No, they would simply cut payment rates for providers of services. On paper, the cuts are massive. CBO says they would total nearly $450 billion in Medicare over the first ten years, but then grow to about $1.9 trillion in the next decade. Just like physician fees, virtually no one believes Congress will sustain arbitrary payment rate cuts of this magnitude. And without them, the Reid plan is a clear budget buster.

So, here’s the bottom line. On paper, the Reid plan plus the “doc fix” would increase total federal spending by about $4.9 trillion over 20 years. Senate Democrats would resort to bracket creep and other tax hikes to raise $2.2 trillion over the same period. The balance would be made up with spending reductions, mainly in Medicare, that no one believes can be sustained, and in any event do not constitute “health reform.” In other words, it’s a tax-and-spend bill of the highest order. And only the spending is certain to happen.