Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

  1. #21
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Yea I've heard this from a lot of quality posters like yourself.
    The problem is I've heard it about 100 different programs and all those "pocket change" programs add up.

    How many times can you use the excuse "it's only x% of our budget" before you think we have spent too much?
    Then we should worry about trimming the truly wasteful projects from the budget. This is essentially the most important project our government can undertake right now. If we can get something as important as universal health care for some pocket change, that is an extremely good deal.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-19-09 at 01:28 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #22
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    I wonder if the CBO analysis is going to take into account the likelyhood that this bill will also end up bankrupting the insurance industry and the cost in jobs and unemployment benefits that the government will have to pay out on top of its own costs.

    But I am sure its pocket change compared to the rest of our deficit, so **** it. Who cares, right?
    If it bankrupts the insurance industry, then that means that people prefer the public plan. Aside from being an inherently good thing that the public plan is efficient enough to woo customers, it means that there would need to be more employees working on the public plan. So what makes you think that this will cost more jobs than it creates?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-19-09 at 01:37 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #23
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then we should worry about trimming the truly wasteful projects from the budget. This is essentially the most important project our government can undertake right now. If we can get something as important as universal health care for some pocket change, that is an extremely good deal.
    If we could do that, you would have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, we cannot do that, and indeed, with the proposals before Congress, we will not do that. Thus your argument is defeated by fiscal reality, defined as the $239 Billion of government IOUs required to fund these proposals.

    $239 Billion in DEBT is not "pocket change." "Pocket change" requires that it be money we have to spend. Debt by definition is money we do not have.

    This healthcare boondoggle you celebrate so smarmily is not paid for with change from anyone's pockets. This healthcare boondoggle is not paid for at all. You don't pay for something when you write an IOU, but when you pay off the IOU.

  4. #24
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    If we could do that, you would have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, we cannot do that, and indeed, with the proposals before Congress, we will not do that. Thus your argument is defeated by fiscal reality, defined as the $239 Billion of government IOUs required to fund these proposals.
    Why don't you think we can find $24 billion of waste in the annual budget? I can find more than that in the Department of Defense alone...and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    Anyway, why don't you devote your energy to opposing those wasteful programs instead of conceding they can't be stopped and instead opposing a truly useful program? That's like concluding that you can't afford your house payment because you're spending too much on beer.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    $239 Billion in DEBT is not "pocket change." "Pocket change" requires that it be money we have to spend. Debt by definition is money we do not have.

    This healthcare boondoggle you celebrate so smarmily is not paid for with change from anyone's pockets. This healthcare boondoggle is not paid for at all. You don't pay for something when you write an IOU, but when you pay off the IOU.
    $24 billion per year is 0.16% of our GDP. We'll survive. For something as important as health care, that is an incredibly good deal.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-19-09 at 01:44 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If it bankrupts the insurance industry, then that means that people are preferring the public plan. Aside from being an inherently good thing that the public plan is efficient enough to woo customers, it means that there would need to be more employees working on the public plan. So what makes you think that this will cost more jobs than it creates?
    One of the things noted in an article RightinNYC quoted, mentioned that "The positive thing about "The Exchange" is that it would eliminate one of the problems, which was health insurance comapnies raising premium rates for consumers who came down with illness."
    From what was explained to me, by RightinNYC, is that private insurers have to be a part of this "exchange" which is supposed to be the private competition for the public plan. So it looks like the "Exchange" is code for federal regulation.
    If you make it illegal for insurance companies to raise rates, for taking on more risk, you are essentially making insurance illegal. Insurance is the transfer of risk, and if they are not allowed to charge an appropriate amount of money for the risk they are assuming, then they will go bankrupt. Thats not the government competing and winning because its better and more efficient, thats the government winning by bankrupting the private sector by making it illegal for the industry to operate in a fiscally responsible manner.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  6. #26
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If it bankrupts the insurance industry, then that means that people are preferring the public plan. Aside from being an inherently good thing that the public plan is efficient enough to woo customers, it means that there would need to be more employees working on the public plan. So what makes you think that this will cost more jobs than it creates?
    The public plan will not be efficient--government is inherently inefficient in all its aspects. The public plan, being an extension of government bureaucracy, will act to maximize costs (thereby maximizing budget and bureaucracy) rather than minimize costs. The public plan, being government sponsored, does not even need to turn a profit (as with other government enterprises, such as Amtrak, Congress will simply cut a check each year for the losses).

    Economic efficiency do not obtain where profit maximization and cost minimization are not the driving forces.

    Nor does the public plan need efficiency. The proposed legislation tilts the playing field in favor of the public plan by limiting and burdening the activities of private insurance.

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    I think I might be onto the game here. Maybe the Dems are proposing something this outrageous, this ill-though of plan so that they fire up the opposition they knew they would face no matter what they tried to initially do, and then they could cut stuff out and people wouldn't be so pissed off about it, because it wasn't quite as stupid as what they previously tried to push through. Its kind of like setting the bar really low initially, so that whatever you try to do next, looks good. I do this all the time, I'm married.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  8. #28
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    One of the things noted in an article RightinNYC quoted, mentioned that "The positive thing about "The Exchange" is that it would eliminate one of the problems, which was health insurance comapnies raising premium rates for consumers who came down with illness."
    From what was explained to me, by RightinNYC, is that private insurers have to be a part of this "exchange" which is supposed to be the private competition for the public plan. So it looks like the "Exchange" is code for federal regulation.
    If you make it illegal for insurance companies to raise rates, for taking on more risk, you are essentially making insurance illegal. Insurance is the transfer of risk, and if they are not allowed to charge an appropriate amount of money for the risk they are assuming, then they will go bankrupt. Thats not the government competing and winning because its better and more efficient, thats the government winning by bankrupting the private sector by making it illegal for the industry to operate in a fiscally responsible manner.
    It doesn't eliminate insurance. It just levels of the costs across the board for everyone. That should not affect the overall revenue/costs.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #29
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The public plan will not be efficient--government is inherently inefficient in all its aspects.
    Then people won't buy it and you don't have to worry about it putting private insurers out of business.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    The public plan, being an extension of government bureaucracy, will act to maximize costs (thereby maximizing budget and bureaucracy) rather than minimize costs. The public plan, being government sponsored, does not even need to turn a profit (as with other government enterprises, such as Amtrak, Congress will simply cut a check each year for the losses).
    The problem is that the profit incentive, while appropriate for most businesses, is horrendous for something like health care. Private insurers do not typically compete on who can provide the best service for the lowest price; they compete on who can screw over the most customers and deny the most people coverage, so as to minimize their expenses.

    But even so, if you're satisfied with your plan, no one is forcing you to take the public health plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Economic efficiency do not obtain where profit maximization and cost minimization are not the driving forces.
    The current system is only "economically efficient" in the sense that the private health insurers are able to maximize THEIR profits while screwing the consumer. The purpose of health care reform is to help the American people get health care coverage, not help the health care companies be as economically efficient as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Nor does the public plan need efficiency. The proposed legislation tilts the playing field in favor of the public plan by limiting and burdening the activities of private insurance.
    The public plan is burdened by all the same limits (e.g. not charging sick people more or kick them off the plan) and then some. So if it's as bad as you say it will be, it shouldn't affect the private sector at all.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #30
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: CBO deals another blow to House health plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Why don't you think we can find $24 billion of waste in the annual budget? I can find more than that in the Department of Defense alone...and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
    I have no doubt that we can do far more than that....and once we have done that then perhaps we can discuss spending $239 billion on healthcare.

    Until we have done that, your argument has no substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Anyway, why don't you devote your energy to opposing those wasteful programs instead of conceding they can't be stopped and instead opposing a truly useful program? That's like concluding that you can't afford your house payment because you're spending too much on beer.
    With your affinity for straw men we need to start calling you Scarecrow.

    I do oppose wasteful programs. I do not concede they are inevitable and cannot be stopped. This is why I oppose the boondoggle the Anti-Republicans facetiously and farcically term "healthcare reform."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    $24 billion per year is 0.16% of our GDP. We'll survive. For something as important as health care, that is an incredibly good deal.
    $24 billion per year is $24 billion of fresh IOUs that the government has no plan and apparently no intention of paying. Expecting others to pick up the tab indefinitely is a guaranteed way to come up short once you run out of other people's money--which will happen. If debts are not paid, no, we will not survive. Which makes this boondoggle the anti-thesis of a "good deal." It is a lousy deal, an unacceptable deal.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •