• 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!

Medicare Actuary Doubts Health Care Law Savings

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Medicare official doubts health care law savings - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

1. Medicare's actuary, much like CBO's Elmendorf a "constant thorn in Obama's side," testifies before Rep Ryan's Budget Committee, under aggressive questioning from Northern California's ultra conservative Tom McClintock, he "doubts" Obamacare will in actuality ultimately keep costs down.

2. For two years Obama, as assiduous as Ahab, justified his radical redrawing of 1/6 of the US economy on fiduciary grounds.

3. It was only in the dark days before his determination to DEEM the damn thing that Obama evolved his EMPHASIS from the economic to this more social animus, expanding coverage to everyone.

4. Before that, "reversing the cost trajectory" was Ahab Obama's raison d'etre.

5. In his sadsack SOTU he switched once more: "health insurance reform will SLOW these RISING costs."

6. Worrisomely worse is the actuary's estimate that equally false is Obama's MANTRA that Americans can keep their current coverage if they like it.

7. The embarrassing emptiness of this essential assurance is what encouraged Ms Sebelius to EXEMPT now EIGHT hundred too bigs from Obamacare's annual limit requirements.

8. Obamacare CUTS Medicare, already over strained, already direly depended on, by HALF A TRILLION dollars while simultaneously expanding its responsibilities to millions more of miserable Americans.

9. It burdens our already bankrupt states with 200B of new obligations in the form of millions more on Medicaid.

10. Doctors already are refusing to treat new Medicare patients, even before Obamacare's egregious and unfunded expansion.

11. Obamacare relies on TEN YEARS OF TAXES vs only SIX of full benefits.

12. It cynically cuts another QUARTER TRIL of DOC FIX out of its intrinsically inauthentic accounting.

13. It corruptly DOUBLE COUNTS another QUARTER T, according to CBO.

14. It relies on "revenues," ie, taxes, fines, fees and mandates, of more than THREE QUARTERS OF A TRIL to get to its bogus bottom line, says CBO.

15. ER costs and traffic actually increase, exposing as ersatz our challenged chief exec's primary payfor, according to the Boston Globe, subsidiary of the Gray Lady.

16. It subjects millions of Americans, mostly our young invulnerables, to MANDATES measuring thousands of dollars per year, with threats of jail time for those who refuse to comply, avows ABC.

17. Just wait til THE MANDATE, assured effortless passage thru Boehner's house, faces Senators McCaskill, Webb, Manchin, Conrad, Nelson, Nelson, Tester, Casey, Brown, Kohl, Klobuchar, Stabenow and Bingaman.

18. All of em UP for reelection in '12.

19. The parliamentary landscape could not be more perilous for the party STILL in power.

20. No wonder our perplexed president was so EQUIVOCAL about his prime piece in his destitute SOTU.

21. No wonder he's so eager to "fix what needs to be fixed and MOVE FORWARD."

22. Party on, progressives, your respite is precariously temporary.

Capitol Briefing - Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts

ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Senate passes 1-year doc fix - The Hill's Healthwatch

Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg

Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

Buy Insurance or Go to Jail? - The Note

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov

McCaskill moves away from mandate - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

The Prof
 
Last edited:
the left won't care. I've posted opinions of former Medicare administrators who said there wont be any savings under Obamacare... the left looks, well... to the left.
 
the left won't care. I've posted opinions of former Medicare administrators who said there wont be any savings under Obamacare... the left looks, well... to the left.

It's not the only issue. Like I keep saying, if cost is your concern, you'd support a single payer system. ;) Right now we pay more for less. Paying more for more is an improvement. Paying less for more would be even better.
 
It's not the only issue. Like I keep saying, if cost is your concern, you'd support a single payer system. ;) Right now we pay more for less. Paying more for more is an improvement. Paying less for more would be even better.

Of course it's not the only issue. I was simply stating that the lefties will not care what Medicare Officials have to say if it reflects negatively on Obamacare.
 
It's not the only issue. Like I keep saying, if cost is your concern, you'd support a single payer system. ;) Right now we pay more for less. Paying more for more is an improvement. Paying less for more would be even better.

If quality healthcare is your concern, you'd never support single payer.
 
Of course it's not the only issue. I was simply stating that the lefties will not care what Medicare Officials have to say if it reflects negatively on Obamacare.

I don't know about lefties or righties. As I understand it many who are for the bill think it didn't go far enough to actually be effective. I'm in that number. That doesn't mean that I think one step is worse than no steps. Ansd while I doubt it will be as effective as the most optomistic think, I do believe that having better access alone makes it worth the effort. now, let's move forward and try to make it even better.
 
If quality healthcare is your concern, you'd never support single payer.

I disagree. I suspect, you have an inaccurate view of a single payer system. The opposition has put a lot misinformation out there. But regardless, a majority in those countries with it really don't want to trade with us. I think there is a reason for that. Those who have access problems here likely understand why.
 
I don't know about lefties or righties. As I understand it many who are for the bill think it didn't go far enough to actually be effective. I'm in that number. That doesn't mean that I think one step is worse than no steps. Ansd while I doubt it will be as effective as the most optomistic think, I do believe that having better access alone makes it worth the effort. now, let's move forward and try to make it even better.

Shall we just skip over the 'what does it cost' part again?
 
It won't keep the cost down because it did not address the issues well enough. The issues are lack of effective malpractice legislation, no incentive to keep the population healthy, unpaid medical bills by people who cannot afford it, and unethical insurance practices by both the general population and the insurance companies themselves.

This bill helps get a lot of people covered, and helps stop insurance companies from denying some coverages, but it does not address the real problems that face our health care industry at all! Oh, and lack of digitalized records is another huge issue.
 
Wow, when you actually read the article it's somewhat contrary to the way Prof spun it when he deliberately changed the title of the article the thread title. (as if no one would notice)
 
I disagree. I suspect, you have an inaccurate view of a single payer system. The opposition has put a lot misinformation out there. But regardless, a majority in those countries with it really don't want to trade with us. I think there is a reason for that. Those who have access problems here likely understand why.

I understand why countries with single payer can't get rid of it. When you train monkeys that they cannot get by without Gov't, they balk when asked too.
 
I understand why countries with single payer can't get rid of it. When you train monkeys that they cannot get by without Gov't, they balk when asked too.

So the English, Canadians, French, and most of the rest of the world are monkeys now? Damn man, I hope you stay in America because you'd probably be laughed at anywhere else. The best part is, if you broke your leg in any of those countries, they wouldn't ask you for ID or a credit card. They'd fix you with a smile and send you on your way, but monkeys smile at just about anything I guess.

*Edited:

Not the greatest website, but here is a list of countries that currently have some form of universal health care.

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare « True Cost – Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier
United States 2014 Insurance Mandate
 
Last edited:
The issues are lack of effective malpractice legislation, no incentive to keep the population healthy, unpaid medical bills by people who cannot afford it, and unethical insurance practices by both the general population and the insurance companies themselves. Oh, and lack of digitalized records is another huge issue.

i'm afraid the systemic problems are quite a bit larger and longer in the making than you point to

for example, from june, 2005:

Exploding Medicaid costs are straining state budgets across the country and were a primary cause of 2006 budget gaps that legislators faced in roughly half of the states this year, according to an April 14 report from the NCSL.

Budget deadline looms large in 10 states

and, of course, there's quite a bit more:

Capitol Briefing - Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts

ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Senate passes 1-year doc fix - The Hill's Healthwatch

Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg

Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

Buy Insurance or Go to Jail? - The Note

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov

read, enjoy, catch up
 
Last edited:
i'm afraid the systemic problems are quite a bit larger and longer in the making than you point to

I have no doubt you are correct that there are more reasons why health care is so unbelievably, ridiculously expensive than what I listed. Either ways, it's a terribly crappy system and it needs to be completely scrapped and started over.

Also, again, digitalize records!?! Let's do it! No more, "what's wrong with you again?" or "We need to have a consultation before we can treat you so that we can have you fill out a long survey and we can find out what's wrong with you again since the other place knows but they didn't send us the documents."
 
I understand why countries with single payer can't get rid of it. When you train monkeys that they cannot get by without Gov't, they balk when asked too.

That's just insulting to others and too dismissive of the reality. People suffer when they don't have access, and it effects more than the person suffering. The nation is better if we have decent health care for all.
 
Shall we just skip over the 'what does it cost' part again?

No. I suggest we do some major refrom that would help costs. As I've said, I think that would be a single payer system. But, more forward.

That said, again, paying more for more is better than paying more for less as we've been doing. Paying less for more is better still.
 
Wow, when you actually read the article it's somewhat contrary to the way Prof spun it when he deliberately changed the title of the article the thread title. (as if no one would notice)

THis is why you're in a tizzy???

Thread title: Medicare Actuary Doubts Health Care Law Savings
Article title: Medicare official doubts health care law savings

the opening of the article...
Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

All he did was clarify the specific position of the person quoted. How is that misleading, contrary to fact, or a 'spin'? Remember now, you claimed the spin was the title change.

Do tell.
 
rcp carried the story as "actuary doubts," not "official doubts"

my inadvertence is actually in violation of dp forum rules, i hope (as much as i care) the monitors will gimme a break

i was so busy sorting thru links from msnbc, wapo, the globe, the nyt, the hill, bloomberg, cbo's website, abc, hhs' website and politico, all pasted in this thread, i lost it

i apologize

LOL!

more to come---stay tuned
 
i made another mistake the micsroscopic minded musta missed

instead of the link to the cbo website demonstrating the MORE THAN THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION dollars of new "revenues" obamacare relies upon to reach its bogus balance, i accidentally pasted the link to the now world famous UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA STUDY showing that after "controlling for age gender, income, geographic region, operation and 30 comorbid conditions," the findings are that "SURGICAL PATIENTS ON MEDICAID ACTUALLY FARE WORSE THAN THE UNINSURED"

the link to that sad little study is in the op

here's the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE statement painting up the THREE QUARTERS OF A TRIL in new fines, fees, mandates, taxes...

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2

my bad

busy, busy, busy...
 
What about lefties who aren't a fan of the health care bill? What should our opinion be, Whovian? You seem to be the go-to guy for handing out opinions of other people.
 
What about lefties who aren't a fan of the health care bill? What should our opinion be, Whovian? You seem to be the go-to guy for handing out opinions of other people.

Well, since you want to troll and try to bait me, I think your opinion should be that you want to convert to Conservativism as soon as humanly possible.. :p
 
Well, since you want to troll and try to bait me, I think your opinion should be that you want to convert to Conservativism as soon as humanly possible.. :p

I'm not against the bill because it's socialism, I'm against it because it's not socialism! :D
 
Well, since you want to troll and try to bait me, I think your opinion should be that you want to convert to Conservativism as soon as humanly possible.. :p

Moderator's Warning:
If you feel a post violates the rules, use the report post button. If you don't think any rule is being broken then this is flaming. Either way, don't do this.
 
tuesday this week, hhs sebelius posted now EIGHT HUNDRED too bigs, including a whole bunch of seiu locals, including three from chicago, all of which have been EXEMPTED from the annual limits everyone else, apparently, is still compelled to abide by

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov

why?

why has ms sebelius waived so many?

why do so many feel the need to flee?

why can't everyone leave if some can?

do you think the 800 will be the last to apply?

how will hhs answer these and other questions?

your new house majority is gonna find out

fred the slasher upton is gonna hold hearings in his republican dominated ENERGY AND COMMERCE committee

HHS grants 500 new healthcare waivers - The Hill's Healthwatch

i appreciate the fact that the hundreds of you who click and submit so frequently yet read so little have NO CLUE concerning the central role played by E&C (henry waxman's old ward) on all things health care related, but you'll find out soon enough

more to the point, posters---how do you feel about republican attempts to get these answers?

are they acting partisan, are they spinning, are they being all unfair and political

or are their questions legitimate concerning the almost one thousand waivers approved by hhs for some and not for all?

and the meaning to obamacare of so considerable a development?

please answer to yourself, if you're inclined, i have no interest in your mere opinions

read the links if you're interested in knowledge more than personalities

take care, all

seeya in committee
 
Back
Top Bottom