• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO deals new blow to health plan

Only you're not addressing what WI Crippler said. Why is it ok for government to refuse to pay doctors and hospitals but it is not ok for insurance companies to do the same thing?

Why is one "cost control" while the other is "greed"?



mmmmm, sorry, I did address it.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference. These numbers encompass all federal dollars taken in and given out. My state pays far more than its fair share.



We don't charge a higher rate, but we certainly pay more into the system due to the fact that we have many more people maxing out on their medicare payments.


Well, I do see a difference. But, there are many with your POV, however. Somehow, those who share my POV were successful in this deal. I'm kind of surprised that the smaller states were able to prevail. I think it was primarily because of Betty McCollum, from MN.

I'm not sure what you mean, that you pay more into the system? Wait, I understand. Higher salaries, a higher percentage hit the cap? That may be true.
 
Well, I do see a difference. But, there are many with your POV, however. Somehow, those who share my POV were successful in this deal. I'm kind of surprised that the smaller states were able to prevail. I think it was primarily because of Betty McCollum, from MN.

I'm not sure what you mean, that you pay more into the system? Wait, I understand. Higher salaries, a higher percentage hit the cap? That may be true.

A higher COL requires that companies pay their employees more so that they can live in these places.

I can promise you that the average earnings in NYC and LA are higher than most other places in the U.S.
 
Always a reason to worry about the negative, that's why it hasn't been fixed yet.

"This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families. ... We can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care -- not this time, not now." - Pres Obama

Its not about healthcare, its about the health insurance industry.
 
I'm sure there will likely emerge a condition that doctors will not be able to refuse service, and they will just have to take the reimbursement rate and like it, even if its at a level lower than the cost of medical care provided. But its ok, if the government lowballs a doctor, because thats part of "efficiency". When an insurance company does it, its "greed".

Always a reason to worry about the negative, that's why it hasn't been fixed yet.

"This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families. ... We can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care -- not this time, not now." - Pres Obama

Only you're not addressing what WI Crippler said. Why is it ok for government to refuse to pay doctors and hospitals but it is not ok for insurance companies to do the same thing?

Why is one "cost control" while the other is "greed"?

mmmmm, sorry, I did address it.

Where in this sequence of posts did you do that? Calling WI Crippler "negative" is not addressing his point.

Why is it ok for government to refuse to pay doctors and hospitals but it is not ok for insurance companies to do the same thing?
 
"This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families. ... We can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care -- not this time, not now." - Pres Obama

Remember citizens, in this time of Post Partisanship and change, playing politics and being extremely partisan is detrimental to this country....unless its myself and democrats doing it, in which case, its perfectly acceptable, nae, needed.
 
Remember citizens, in this time of Post Partisanship and change, playing politics and being extremely partisan is detrimental to this country....unless its myself and democrats doing it, in which case, its perfectly acceptable, nae, needed.

All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, Animal Farm
Orwell was prophetic in a scary way.


 
A higher COL requires that companies pay their employees more so that they can live in these places.

I can promise you that the average earnings in NYC and LA are higher than most other places in the U.S.



My family is in NY, and I grew up there, I'm familiar with it.
Then they should charge more. That's easy.
 
My family is in NY, and I grew up there, I'm familiar with it.
Then they should charge more. That's easy.
How do you propose they charge more, when Medicare reimbursement rates are set by Washington?
 
Remember citizens, in this time of Post Partisanship and change, playing politics and being extremely partisan is detrimental to this country....unless its myself and democrats doing it, in which case, its perfectly acceptable, nae, needed.


You, and the rest of the group that is the the three in 10 Americans are of this opinion. The rest of us 7 in 10 Americans are movin' on forward. And, btw, you'll notice that 70% is not the percentage of Democratic registration in this country. There is a rump Republican party playing hyper partisan politics, and they are playing it in order to kill health reform legislation.

Thankfully, we don't have to wait until 10 out of 10 Americans are of the same opinion. But, it'll be okay, 100 yrs ago people got used to cars, 60 yrs ago people got used to televisions, and the idea that your lifetime employer would provide health insurance coverage for you, woooo-eeeeee, in the 70s people got used to COLOR television. In this new century! god, has it taken this long? even those who will be dragged kicking and screaming across the finish line, will get used to the new health insurance landscape, and will come to realize (it'll take decades for some, I know) that they and the country dodged a big bullet back in '09, when they tried to kill health care reform. And, they'll be thankful. :2wave:
 
How do you propose they charge more, when Medicare reimbursement rates are set by Washington?


State surtax, to pay for the extra state costs.

Or, become more efficient. They can do it.
 
This relates to the specific provision of the the health care legislation that was the topic of the OP. I think I posted somewhere back that I'd read that the CBO news on this provision wasn't good news in terms of paying for this bill, but does sound like good news in terms of long term addressing the structural deficit problem that Medicare/Medicaid represents:



July 25, 2009, 9:06 pm
More on Paying for Health Reform
By David Leonhardt

Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, also wrote a blog post about “MedPac on steroids” this afternoon. In it, he says that this version of MedPac — an empowered panel that’s been proposed by the White House, with the ability to alter how Medicare reimburses medical care — was never intended to help pay for health reform. Instead, it was meant to help reduce the long-term growth of health costs.

He also took a gentle swipe at the Congressional Budget Office — which he used to run. But fascinating as that is, we’ll get to it in a minute.

First a bit of background: The fight over health reform involves two kinds of costs. The first is the cost of covering the uninsured. Economists estimate this will cost something like $100 billion a year (and, even at this price, won’t cover all of the uninsured). The second involves reducing the overall growth of medical costs. As readers of my column may know, I think the second is the more important issue. Medical costs are already costing the typical American family thousands of dollars a year, and they are rising at a pace that would make the federal government insolvent.

The Obama administration is trying to put together a health reform bill that would deal with both of those costs. To pay for the uninsured, they have proposed a package of Medicare changes that would save about $50 billion a year. (The best known is the elimination of the current subsidy for private insurers that provide the same services as Medicare, but not as cheaply.) To bring down long-term costs — or to “bend the curve,” as administration officials like to say — they have proposed several steps, including “MedPac on steroids,” which is formally known as IMAC.

Many health experts think that the current versions of health reform in Congress don’t do enough to bend the curve. The IMAC proposal was an attempt by the administration to push Congress to do more. As Mr. Orszag writes in his blog post:

The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. (Indeed, under the Administration’s approach, the IMAC system would not even begin to make recommendations until 2015.) Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term….​

He also noted that the Congressional Budget Office agreed that IMAC “could lead to significant long-term savings in federal spending on health care” He continued: “The bottom line is that it is very rare for CBO to conclude that a specific legislative proposal would generate significant long-term savings so it is noteworthy that, with some modifications, CBO reached such a conclusion with regard to the IMAC concept.”

What should we make of this? It’s all fair for Mr. Orszag to point out. But it’s also true that the administration would have been very happy if the Congressional Budget Office had decided that IMAC would bring more medium-term savings. That would have left Congress and the administration with a smaller budgetary hole to fill, in order to pay for an expansion of insurance. To fill that hole, Congress is likely to rely largely on a combination of taxes on the wealthy, like a surtax on households making at least $1 million.

Now, about that swipe Mr. Orszag took at his former place of employ:

As a former CBO director, I can attest that CBO is sometimes accused of a bias toward exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. Unfortunately, parts of today’s analysis from CBO could feed that perception. For example, and without specifying precisely how the various modifications would work, CBO somehow concluded that the council could “eventually achieve annual savings equal to several percent of Medicare spending…[which] would amount to tens of billions of dollars per year after 2019.” Such savings are welcome (and rare!), but it is also the case that (for good reason) CBO has restricted itself to qualitative, not quantitative, analyses of long-term effects from legislative proposals. In providing a quantitative estimate of long-term effects without any analytical basis for doing so, CBO seems to have overstepped.​

In effect, Mr. Orzag is suggesting that the Congressional Budget Office is overestimating its ability to see into the future.

It will interesting to see whether Douglas Elmendorf, the current director of the Congressional Budget Office, responds on his blog.

More on Paying for Health Reform - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com
 
You, and the rest of the group that is the the three in 10 Americans are of this opinion. The rest of us 7 in 10 Americans are movin' on forward. And, btw, you'll notice that 70% is not the percentage of Democratic registration in this country. There is a rump Republican party playing hyper partisan politics, and they are playing it in order to kill health reform legislation.

Thankfully, we don't have to wait until 10 out of 10 Americans are of the same opinion. But, it'll be okay, 100 yrs ago people got used to cars, 60 yrs ago people got used to televisions, and the idea that your lifetime employer would provide health insurance coverage for you, woooo-eeeeee, in the 70s people got used to COLOR television. In this new century! god, has it taken this long? even those who will be dragged kicking and screaming across the finish line, will get used to the new health insurance landscape, and will come to realize (it'll take decades for some, I know) that they and the country dodged a big bullet back in '09, when they tried to kill health care reform. And, they'll be thankful. :2wave:

:lol: Sorry, excuse me a moment while you call me a hyper partisan republican. I need to keep that filed away for the next time in the next week one of the republicans here goes off on how I may as well be a democrat. Sorry bub, but the only hyper partisan here is you and its obvious in each and every blathering, republican bashing, mindlessly spewing democrat talking points, post that you make.

But that's okay, I'm glad you think so much like George W. Bush. You must be of his ilk I'm guessing. "You're either with us or against us". I love you people that just love the Politics of Fear and other stuff like this. Its very becoming of you.

And so you care so greatly about polls that THAT is what guides you. Good to know. So I take it when the polls come out showing that the majority of Americans disagree with this ****ty plan and say "Hey, doing something for the sake of doing something doesn't necessarily make it good" you'll obvious be agreeing with them all...because I mean, if the majority wants it that's what matters.

Yes, there is definitely issues with our health care. We most definitely need reform. HOWEVER it is not so dire and urgent that we must pass something in the next 2 weeks and that something must be nationalized public healthcare. Sorry, I don't buy that. That kind of thinking is as hyper partisan, asinine, fear monger, "Politics as Usual" bull**** that brought about "You're either with us or against us".

Thanks Barack....Bull**** we can Believe in. Gotta love a change from "politics as usual".

As the VP says...

That's not change, that's just more of the same.
 
Last edited:
:lol: Sorry, excuse me a moment while you call me a hyper partisan republican. I need to keep that filed away for the next time in the next week one of the republicans here goes off on how I may as well be a democrat. Sorry bub, but the only hyper partisan here is you and its obvious in each and every blathering, republican bashing, mindlessly spewing democrat talking points, post that you make.

But that's okay, I'm glad you think so much like George W. Bush. You must be of his ilk I'm guessing. "You're either with us or against us". I love you people that just love the Politics of Fear and other stuff like this. Its very becoming of you.

And so you care so greatly about polls that THAT is what guides you. Good to know. So I take it when the polls come out showing that the majority of Americans disagree with this ****ty plan and say "Hey, doing something for the sake of doing something doesn't necessarily make it good" you'll obvious be agreeing with them all...because I mean, if the majority wants it that's what matters.

Yes, there is definitely issues with our health care. We most definitely need reform. HOWEVER it is not so dire and urgent that we must pass something in the next 2 weeks and that something must be nationalized public healthcare. Sorry, I don't buy that. That kind of thinking is as hyper partisan, asinine, fear monger, "Politics as Usual" bull**** that brought about "You're either with us or against us".

Thanks Barack....Bull**** we can Believe in. Gotta love a change from "politics as usual".

As the VP says...

That's not change, that's just more of the same.


You keep mischaracterizing my position AND my opinion. That makes YOU the hyperpartisan, and not me.

Once again, I'll note, more than 160 Republican amendments have been adopted already to the legislation in the Senate. It is most definitely NOT with us or against us.

It's pull a seat up to the table and work to pass this, or get out of the way.

SEVEN IN TEN Americans want this health care legislation passed.

SEVEN IN TEN Americans are NOT Democrats.

You can pretend that it's hyperpartisanship, but you are only putting yourself with the rump Republican hyperpartisan caucus left in Congress.

Step up to the table and work on getting the legislation paid for, and passed. If you don't want to, hey that's fine, but then you stand with the NO NO NO party. Not with the American people.

However, I agree with you on two weeks. No, it doesn't have to be passed in two weeks.
 
SEVEN IN TEN Americans want this health care legislation passed.

WRONG!!!!

Most in U.S. Want Healthcare Reform, but Vary on Urgency

Seven in 10 Americans favor the passage of new healthcare reform legislation, but less than half (41%) say a new law needs to be passed this year.
Most Americans do NOT support this healthcare legislation.

More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on Healthcare

Half of all Americans disapprove of Dear Leader's handling of healthcare.

Majority in U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform This Year

Most Americans want legislation that addresses costs rather than universal coverage.

HR3200 is woefully out of step with what most Americans want.
 
You keep mischaracterizing my position AND my opinion.

Step up to the table and work on getting the legislation paid for, and passed. If you don't want to, hey that's fine, but then you stand with the NO NO NO party. Not with the American people.

Nope, I don't have to mischaracterize anything. You do it fine there. Either pass this plan or you're against the american people and health care reformer.

You, and the rest of the partisan politics playing "Change" democrats, are Bush with a donkey's ass instead of an elephants.

Your arguments, view points, and thoughts on this are as pathetic as those of republicans in past years stating anyone that didn't agree with how to deal with terrorism was against America and "against" fighting terrorism. Not worth anyones time.
 
Nope, I don't have to mischaracterize anything. You do it fine there. Either pass this plan or you're against the american people and health care reformer.

You, and the rest of the partisan politics playing "Change" democrats, are Bush with a donkey's ass instead of an elephants.

Your arguments, view points, and thoughts on this are as pathetic as those of republicans in past years stating anyone that didn't agree with how to deal with terrorism was against America and "against" fighting terrorism. Not worth anyones time.


Nope, the plan will pass without you. Either step up and work on constructively getting it passed, or get out of the way of being in the way of the American people. We DO want it passed. And it's not Democrats. You keep saying it, but you keep ignoring the fact that 7 in 10 Americans are NOT Democrats, but 7 in 10 Americans DO want it passed.
 
WRONG!!!!

Most in U.S. Want Healthcare Reform, but Vary on Urgency

Most Americans do NOT support this healthcare legislation.

More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on Healthcare

Half of all Americans disapprove of Dear Leader's handling of healthcare.

Majority in U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform This Year

Most Americans want legislation that addresses costs rather than universal coverage.

HR3200 is woefully out of step with what most Americans want.


That's funny .... you can look right at the sentence and not see what you don't want to see. Seven in 10 Americans DO want health care reform legislation passed. I never said they wanted it this year. I said they wanted it passed!!

However, count me in the 41%. I'm for THIS YEAR!
 
SEVEN IN TEN Americans want this health care legislation passed.

Nope, the plan will pass without you. Either step up and work on constructively getting it passed, or get out of the way of being in the way of the American people. We DO want it passed. And it's not Democrats. You keep saying it, but you keep ignoring the fact that 7 in 10 Americans are NOT Democrats, but 7 in 10 Americans DO want it passed.

That's funny .... you can look right at the sentence and not see what you don't want to see. Seven in 10 Americans DO want health care reform legislation passed. I never said they wanted it this year. I said they wanted it passed!!

However, count me in the 41%. I'm for THIS YEAR!

I hear the scraping sounds of moving goalposts.

You claimed that seven out of ten Americans support the healthcare bill we are discussing here--HR3200. That is a blatantly false statement. HR3200 does not enjoy majority support Among Americans. So sayeth the Gallup organization.

I already figured you were in the 41% that figured Maine desperately needed other states to help pay for their health insurance.
 
That's funny .... you can look right at the sentence and not see what you don't want to see. Seven in 10 Americans DO want health care reform legislation passed. I never said they wanted it this year. I said they wanted it passed!!

However, count me in the 41%. I'm for THIS YEAR!

The last Gallup poll was taken on July 14 and Gallup polls whoever answers the phone. Those polling likely voters are getting very different results now with most Americans not approving the healthcare as proposed by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, and what support there is for government takeover of healthcare is eroding fast up through this week. Democrats still favor it by a substantial margin though support has slipped even there. Republicans and now those unaffiliated with either the GOP or Democrats are substantially opposing it.

It is for that reason that Harry Reid, who is already in trouble in Nevada, is not going to stick his neck out very far on this and he is trying to look responsible by saying let's slow down and go more slowly on this and the blue dogs in the Democratic House are also beginning to balk now that we are getting more and more details of what is in the bill.

President didn't help with his zombielike fillibuster press conference geared to prevent many questions earlier in the week, and he was barely coherent almost certainly by design.

They don't WANT you to know what they intend to do to you. And the ONLY ones pressing for an immediate healthcare overhaul are the President, his staff spokespersons, and liberal Democrats in Congress. Nobody else.

Peggy Noonan this week though summed it up here:

I think the plan is being slowed and may well be stopped not by ideology, or even by philosophy in a strict sense, but by simple American common sense. I suspect voters, the past few weeks, have been giving themselves an internal Q-and-A that goes something like this:

Will whatever health care bill is produced by Congress increase the deficit? “Of course.” Will it mean tax increases? “Of course.” Will it mean new fees or fines? “Probably.” Can I afford it right now? “No, I’m already getting clobbered.” Will it make the marketplace freer and better? “Probably not.” Is our health care system in crisis? “Yeah, it has been for years.” Is it the most pressing crisis right now? “No, the economy is.” Will a health-care bill improve the economy? “I doubt it.”

. . . .(among three other considerations): The first has to do with the doctors throughout the country who give patients a break, who quietly underbill someone they know is in trouble, or don’t charge for their services. Also the emergency rooms that provide excellent service for the uninsured in medical crisis. People don’t talk about this much because they’re afraid if they do they’ll lose it, that some government genius will come along and make it illegal for a doctor not to charge or a hospital to fudge around, with mercy, in its billing. People are afraid of losing the parts of the system that sometimes work—the unquantifiable parts, the human parts. . . .
Peggy Noonan: Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare - WSJ.com
 
I hear the scraping sounds of moving goalposts.

You claimed that seven out of ten Americans support the healthcare bill we are discussing here--HR3200. That is a blatantly false statement. HR3200 does not enjoy majority support Among Americans. So sayeth the Gallup organization.

I already figured you were in the 41% that figured Maine desperately needed other states to help pay for their health insurance.


Ahhh, 'this' that was an editing problem. I was typing this legislation, and went back to fill in health care legislation and failed to pull out this. You are absolutely correct, THIS is in error. However, there is no THIS yet to name, b/c no legislation has made it out of committee yet, either in the house or the senate, and as we've gone thru in several threads, even once they do, THIS legislation won't be until it comes out of conference.

So, yes, I absolutely meant to leave it generic, and THIS was left in, in error.

And.... seven in ten Americans DO want health care legislation passed. :2wave:
 
Ahhh, 'this' that was an editing problem. I was typing this legislation, and went back to fill in health care legislation and failed to pull out this. You are absolutely correct, THIS is in error. However, there is no THIS yet to name, b/c no legislation has made it out of committee yet, either in the house or the senate, and as we've gone thru in several threads, even once they do, THIS legislation won't be until it comes out of conference.
Yeah, keep moving the goal posts. You still haven't gotten around the fact that most Americans are opposed to the passage of HR3200--which is the bill the Anti-Republicans are proposing to vote on in the House of Representatives.

Bob, weave, flail, and bail (and fail).....reality will still smack you in the face in the end.
 
The last Gallup poll was taken on July 14 and Gallup polls whoever answers the phone. Those polling likely voters are getting very different results now with most Americans not approving the healthcare as proposed by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, and what support there is for government takeover of healthcare is eroding fast up through this week. Democrats still favor it by a substantial margin though support has slipped even there. Republicans and now those unaffiliated with either the GOP or Democrats are substantially opposing it.

It is for that reason that Harry Reid, who is already in trouble in Nevada, is not going to stick his neck out very far on this and he is trying to look responsible by saying let's slow down and go more slowly on this and the blue dogs in the Democratic House are also beginning to balk now that we are getting more and more details of what is in the bill.

President didn't help with his zombielike fillibuster press conference geared to prevent many questions earlier in the week, and he was barely coherent almost certainly by design.

They don't WANT you to know what they intend to do to you. And the ONLY ones pressing for an immediate healthcare overhaul are the President, his staff spokespersons, and liberal Democrats in Congress. Nobody else.

Peggy Noonan this week though summed it up here:

Hey Owl, I was just reading some interesting posts of your in another thread.

Re: Gallup, there is a new poll out this am. It was taken after Pres Obama's presser this week.

I disagree that they don't want us to know what they're going to do. I think the problem is there isn't final agreement yet, and there isn't a final product to discuss.

Appreciate the Noonan excerpt. I enjoy her writing. In this case, I think she's wrong tho. We will see !
 
Yeah, keep moving the goal posts. You still haven't gotten around the fact that most Americans are opposed to the passage of HR3200--which is the bill the Anti-Republicans are proposing to vote on in the House of Representatives.

Bob, weave, flail, and bail (and fail).....reality will still smack you in the face in the end.


No, I made an error, and copped to it. I've tried very hard to stay generic in talking about legislation, but more than once I shorthanded it and had to go back and re-type.
 
Back
Top Bottom