• 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!

EXCLUSIVE -- Democrats plan doc fix after reform

RightinNYC said:
…Do you have an explanation for why [student loan reform is] an integral part of health care reform, but doctor reimbursement rates aren't?
Click to expand...

Just as doctor reimbursement was excluded from the health care reform bill because it made it more difficult to pass the bill, the addition of the student loan reform bill makes it more easy to pass that, and most people outside of red-dog conservatives readily recognize student loan reform as ‘a good thing.’

Excerpted from “The Other Huge Reform At Stake Sunday” By Jonathan Chait, The New Republic, March 19, 2010 | 9:45 am
… [[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]]he fact that this [combined health care reform and student loan reconciliation bill] is a straight majority vote means the usual coalition of every Republican plus a couple Democratic shills won't be enough to stop it. This would be a major advance for the cause of good government reform.
Click to expand...
 
Chappy said:
Just as doctor reimbursement was excluded from the health care reform bill because it made it more difficult to pass the bill, the addition of the student loan reform bill makes it more easy to pass that, and most people outside of red-dog conservatives readily recognize student loan reform as ‘a good thing.’
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain how the doctor fix is not related but the student loan part is related.

It basically means that if someone doesn't vote for it, they can be labeled anti children or something else nonsensical.
 
Voting against student loan reform is a vote for continuing the existing business handout program.
 
Chappy said:
Voting against student loan reform is a vote for continuing the existing business handout program.
Click to expand...

That may be partially true but it shouldn't be included in the health care bill.
If it merits change, that should be apparent on it's own.

Basically the leadership have decided that they have to manipulate the perception of the actual cost of "health care reform" by throwing in non related savings and leaving out related expenses.

It is a shell game.
 
Nonsense. This is the reconciliation bill, the one and only; it's time to reconcile!
 
Chappy said:
Nonsense. This is the reconciliation bill, the one and only; it's time to reconcile!
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be a jerk, because you seem like a nice person, but you are convinced that this is the answer to all of our problems without reviewing the facts.

Leaving out important budget considerations to get a positive result on the numbers is fraud.

Stop falling for the spin on both sides of the isle.
 
Chappy said:
Just as doctor reimbursement was excluded from the health care reform bill because it made it more difficult to pass the bill, the addition of the student loan reform bill makes it more easy to pass that, and most people outside of red-dog conservatives readily recognize student loan reform as ‘a good thing.’
Click to expand...

You realize that nothing you've just said responds to any of the points I raised, right?
 
RightinNYC said:
You realize that nothing you've just said responds to any of the points I raised, right?
Click to expand...

The assumption it would have responded to anything you said would be based off the fallacy of believing here was here to have a discussion.

The very notion that the Democrats have been saying we can't do health care reform in piece mail form but must do it as a comprehensive thing, but then saying that a particular piece of health care reform doesn't belong in a comprehensive bill and should be put forward piece mail, but something completely separate from health care SHOULD be part of that comprehensive coverage because its a "Good thing" is so mind numbling ****ing retarded that I can't even think of it without getting a headache.
 
Zyphlin said:
The assumption it would have responded to anything you said would be based off the fallacy of believing here was here to have a discussion.

The very notion that the Democrats have been saying we can't do health care reform in piece mail form but must do it as a comprehensive thing, but then saying that a particular piece of health care reform doesn't belong in a comprehensive bill and should be put forward piece mail, but something completely separate from health care SHOULD be part of that comprehensive coverage because its a "Good thing" is so mind numbling ****ing retarded that I can't even think of it without getting a headache.
Click to expand...

The bulk of the bill DOES have to be done as a whole, and that's exactly what they're doing.

Fixing pre-existing conditions needs to go with a mandate, to provide healthy customers to make up for the unhealthy ones entering the system.

With the mandate we need controls to ensure shady insurers don't sell junk insurance that doesn't really cover anything, taking money while still leaving the costs of illness on the rest of the country.

That's like 90% of the bill right there.
 
Deuce said:
The bulk of the bill DOES have to be done as a whole, and that's exactly what they're doing.

Fixing pre-existing conditions needs to go with a mandate, to provide healthy customers to make up for the unhealthy ones entering the system.

With the mandate we need controls to ensure shady insurers don't sell junk insurance that doesn't really cover anything, taking money while still leaving the costs of illness on the rest of the country.

That's like 90% of the bill right there.
Click to expand...

And with the cuts in medicare advantage payments, they need to roll back the planned cuts in doctor reimbursements. Yet they separated that one out and are holding it until the first bill passes. That's the point that has been raised over and over again, yet remains unanswered.

There is no way to say that the things currently in the bill all need to be there, but the doc fix doesn't.
 
RightinNYC said:
And with the cuts in medicare advantage payments, they need to roll back the planned cuts in doctor reimbursements. Yet they separated that one out and are holding it until the first bill passes. That's the point that has been raised over and over again, yet remains unanswered.

There is no way to say that the things currently in the bill all need to be there, but the doc fix doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't see that part as being critical to the big picture. Important, certainly.
 
90% of this bill can be summed up in three prof-style choppy little sentences?

puhleez
 
Deuce said:
I don't see that part as being critical to the big picture. Important, certainly.
Click to expand...

Unless you're saying it's less critical to the big health care picture than anything else in the bill, including student loan reform, that doesn't really address the point.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
My side?
I think your confusing me with someone else.

I don't do spin, I deal with facts and reality.
I think going for a crap shoot instead of addressing the real problems with medical cost inflation is a poor choice.
This bill and further adjustments to health care reform will be entirely political solving none of the problems it was supposed to.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that. But your posts don't reflect that. This bill is a start in the right direction, little more. We should expect more to come later.
 
RightinNYC said:
Which is sort of the point. If it had never been there in the first place, it wouldn't be as obvious of an issue.



Which has what to do with the question of whether it's deceptive? By then, the bill will have already been passed.
Click to expand...

The Bill passed will be the one passed. Anything else must be voted on and fought for. Nothing deceptive about that. If there is no bill, no reform at all is done. Makes everything meaningless if there is no bill passed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Keep telling yourself that. But your posts don't reflect that. This bill is a start in the right direction, little more. We should expect more to come later.
Click to expand...

My posts reflect that I object/approve policies/bills based on the merit of said policies/bills.

This issue has been my pet for the past year, I have studied it in depth and I know what I am talking about.
I was at first on the fence about UHC, about to accept it as the superior choice but looking deeper I found that it won't work, this bill won't work.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
My posts reflect that I object/approve policies/bills based on the merit of said policies/bills.

This issue has been my pet for the past year, I have studied it in depth and I know what I am talking about.
I was at first on the fence about UHC, about to accept it as the superior choice but looking deeper I found that it won't work, this bill won't work.
Click to expand...
Boo's one trick obtuse pony act is starting to get threadbare ain't it?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
My posts reflect that I object/approve policies/bills based on the merit of said policies/bills.

This issue has been my pet for the past year, I have studied it in depth and I know what I am talking about.
I was at first on the fence about UHC, about to accept it as the superior choice but looking deeper I found that it won't work, this bill won't work.
Click to expand...

I see non evidence of that. Nor do I put much stock in such self declarations. Many hear like to shout their expertise and play attack on others. I would prefer you actually get it right and make a logical argument. I don't care what you think of yourself.
 
Boo Radley said:
The Bill passed will be the one passed. Anything else must be voted on and fought for. Nothing deceptive about that. If there is no bill, no reform at all is done. Makes everything meaningless if there is no bill passed.
Click to expand...

And two dozen posts later, you're still ignoring the point.

When the Dems first proposed a health reform bill, they included the doc fix, saying that it was part of their proposal. It turned out to be expensive. They removed it from the bill, and are now planning on passing it after the bill is passed. They did that because it allows them to say that their health care reform will not increase the deficit. They justify removing the doc fix by saying that it's not related to health care reform, but then turn around and include student loan reform in the bill because that helps their CBO score.

If you don't see how that's at all deceptive, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
RightinNYC said:
And two dozen posts later, you're still ignoring the point.

When the Dems first proposed a health reform bill, they included the doc fix, saying that it was part of their proposal. It turned out to be expensive. They removed it from the bill, and are now planning on passing it after the bill is passed. They did that because it allows them to say that their health care reform will not increase the deficit. They justify removing the doc fix by saying that it's not related to health care reform, but then turn around and include student loan reform in the bill because that helps their CBO score.

If you don't see how that's at all deceptive, then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

They removed it. It's not there. Not in this bill. Your speculation about what might be done later doesn't matter. It is not there now.

If they try to put it in later, they still have to get votes for it. Unless they fix that problem, which they might, republicans can make the same argument. The CBO would still run the numbers again. I see nothing deceptive. The current bill is what is being voted on. Not what you think might be added later.
 
Boo Radley said:
I see non evidence of that. Nor do I put much stock in such self declarations. Many hear like to shout their expertise and play attack on others. I would prefer you actually get it right and make a logical argument. I don't care what you think of yourself.
Click to expand...

The CBO analysis is incomplete even when it accounts for all portions left out in this specific bill.
It doesn't address the behavior changes in consumers when these policies are implemented and based on prior history, it will cost more than expected.

You know for a fact, that the things left out, will be put back in with separate legislative actions.
Your playing stupid on purpose, just to support your similarly minded politicians.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The CBO analysis is incomplete even when it accounts for all portions left out in this specific bill.
It doesn't address the behavior changes in consumers when these policies are implemented and based on prior history, it will cost more than expected.

You know for a fact, that the things left out, will be put back in with separate legislative actions.
Your playing stupid on purpose, just to support your similarly minded politicians.
Click to expand...

Behavior changes are speculative. Not something that can be reasonably predicted. And whether anything can be put back remains to be seen. It isn't magical. There has to be a legislative act. Each act can be fought just as they were this time.

And you're right, you really shouldn't play stupid and act as if this would be magic and not opposed. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Behavior changes are speculative. Not something that can be reasonably predicted. And whether anything can be put back remains to be seen. It isn't magical. There has to be a legislative act. Each act can be fought just as they were this time.

And you're right, you really shouldn't play stupid and act as if this would be magic and not opposed. ;)
Click to expand...

It's not speculative at all.

We have a prior history of it.
In fact, that is why we are in this position in the first place.
This bill increase minimum benefit mandates(increasing prices), shields consumers even more from the true price of medical care and is going to increase prices across the board.

It's already happened, ignoring that is willful on your part.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not speculative at all.

We have a prior history of it.
In fact, that is why we are in this position in the first place.
This bill increase minimum benefit mandates(increasing prices), shields consumers even more from the true price of medical care and is going to increase prices across the board.

It's already happened, ignoring that is willful on your part.
Click to expand...

Consumers will never be able to pay the price. Doctors will not go back to trading services for fruits and vegetables. So, everything, including private insurance, shields the consumer. They actually think no one pays for the uninsured and don't see how they do.

So, the problem is how to have care for the most at the least or more controlable costs. The present system hasn't been effective. And the market has never so much as tried to tackle it. Nor will it.

But this has nothing to do with the silliness you posted earlier. It is a different, though better discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom