• 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

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
UPDATE: Democrats challenge authenticity of ?doc fix? memo - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

“Most health staff are already aware that our health proposal does not contain a 'doc fix.' … The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform’s budget neutrality. So again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered,” the memo, sent Thursday to Democratic staff, said.

...

The memo helps explains why the American Medical Association has supported reform even though their top legislative priority, the doc fix, was left out. The group is working behind the scenes with Democratic leadership and the White House to fix the cuts later this year.

So here we have a memo directly from the Democrats where they admit that they've removed the $371,000,000,000 Doctor fix from their health care bill because it would mean that their total reform would add hundreds of billions to the deficit. How exactly do you spin that? Wait, I know:

The memo also repeatedly advises Democrats not to discuss the details of the CBO score. “We cannot emphasize this enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered," the memo says.

You ignore any attempts to actually discuss the specifics or details and instead just stubbornly repeat your 5-second soundbyte.

That's really, really, really bad if true.

edit: The Dems have since challenged the authenticity of the memo.
 
Well they have to deny it... if they owned up to it their bribery attempts so far may change their minds during the DEEM vote.

But the math, I think Paul Ryan's words last night from the Capital said it all... the double counting, the CBO hide and seek numbers, and the claims of deficit savings is out and out bunk. Now they want to add the Doc Fix after the fact so they don't complicate the already bad math and corruption they have going on. The blind ideology here is staggering. Pelosi would eat live babies if she thought it would sway someone to vote for this fiction of a bill. Sad sad sad times for our country are ahead. But hey, maybe we can all tune into John Stewart and watch him make funny faces and forget allllll about it.
 
They'd better vote quickly. This CBO report is unravelling faster than a new bride's garter.
 
They'd better vote quickly. This CBO report is unravelling faster than a new bride's garter.

FWIW, it's not the CBO report that's problematic, it's the Dem leadership's misrepresentation of its conclusions.
 
This is going to get nasty.......

Senator Tom Coburn threatened House Democrats– We will out you for selling your vote.

“I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House. If you voted “no” and you vote “yes” and you lose your election, and you think any nomination for a federal position isn’t going to be held up in the Senate, I’ve got news for you. It will be held.

Number two is if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I’ve already instructed my staff and the staff of 7 other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill at every level at every incidence and we will outline it by district and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now and it can not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that that aint gonna happen. And, be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.”

Gateway Pundit

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA0EOugizPY"]YouTube- Coburn: Senate Republicans Will Watch for Sweetheart Deals in Health Care[/ame]
 
I have got news for you. The memo is a forgery, and Politico has pulled the story from its web site. Politico got punked with this. Nobody knows who created and circulated the forgery, but the Dems are hopping mad over it, and are accusing Republicans of creating the memo.

FOX News is, however, still running with the fake story, which is just more proof that they are basically a propaganda arm of the GOP, as opposed to any kind of legitimate news organization.

Story is here.
 
Last edited:
I have got news for you. The memo is a forgery, and Politico has pulled the story from its web site. Politico got punked with this. Nobody knows who created and circulated the forgery, but the Dems are hopping mad over it, and are accusing Republicans of creating the memo.

FOX News is, however, still running with the fake story, which is just more proof that they are basically a propaganda arm of the GOP, as opposed to any kind of legitimate news organization.

Story is here.

Politico pulled it, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a forgery. Marc Ambinder did some checking into the source and concluded this:

I gave the memo a once over. I looked legit -- the points it makes are, indeed, potential trouble spots for Democrats. I wrote and posted an item on it. In doing so I committed an error of craft: I didn't check to see what the Democratic leadership or the White House or the Democratic National Committee had to say. Had I done so, I would have been told that they did not write the memo. So -- no Dan Rather Excuse here -- I didn't do due diligence, and I posted the item too quickly. For the sake of my post, it doesn't matter whether the underlying facts are true, it matters whether the memo is a real one. Before characterizing the memo as being from Democrats, or insinuating that the memo listed official talking points, I clearly should have made a call. I didn't. That's on me.

I don't know if the memo is a hoax. I suspect that it is was created by someone who is a Democrat -- but that it comes from an allied Democratic group, or from a committee staff member. Dozens of such memos circulate daily through the K-Street-Capitol Corridor. A Republican might have been 'cc'd on one such e-mail, which was then sent up the flagpole, and then send out to reporters by a hyperkinetic communications staff.

I do not believe that Mr. Steel or a member of his staff created the memo. You may ask why I believe this, and my reasons won't satisfy many of you, but here goes: I've know Steel for years. He is a stand-up guy and isn't dishonest; in trickier situations, he's told me the truth. Here he may have been overzealous, and I fell for it on a slow Friday afternoon.

You're absolutely right that it looks like it didn't come from one of the people in Congress, but it's also too soon to call it a forgery. Ben Smith is trying to do more investigation, so hopefully he turns up something.
 
Politico pulled it, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a forgery. Marc Ambinder did some checking into the source and concluded this:



You're absolutely right that it looks like it didn't come from one of the people in Congress, but it's also too soon to call it a forgery. Ben Smith is trying to do more investigation, so hopefully he turns up something.
Dana also missed that the Fox article calls the document "purported" in the title and that in the body of the article there are several references to the idea it is a fake. Which I guess is how the GOP told Fox to report the story, right after they told Politico to publish the story Fox picked up on and which appears to be anything but a settled matter of forgery.:doh
 
I want to see solid evidence that the memo exists, otherwise this is little more than a conspiracy theory.
 
I want to see solid evidence that the memo exists, otherwise this is little more than a conspiracy theory.

Evidence? We don't need no stinkin evidence! :(;)
 
I want to see solid evidence that the memo exists, otherwise this is little more than a conspiracy theory.

It was in the old bill, they removed it to make it "look" good for the deficit.
It will be applied after the fact and at the same time they can still claim that the bill will reduce the deficit.
 
I want to see solid evidence that the memo exists, otherwise this is little more than a conspiracy theory.

As was noted, the memo's provenance is doubtful, but the fact that the dems are planning to push a $200b+ doctor fix after this current bill is passed is pretty clear, based on their own words.
 
Any fix will also have to be fought for. All of us should not think this passage is the end of the effort. And that doesn't mean anything is deceptive in noting this or doing this once it is passed.
 
Any fix will also have to be fought for. All of us should not think this passage is the end of the effort. And that doesn't mean anything is deceptive in noting this or doing this once it is passed.

The intent of the first bill was entirely deceptive.

If everything, that they want to pass, is so good.
Why not include together in this bill?
 
Any fix will also have to be fought for. All of us should not think this passage is the end of the effort. And that doesn't mean anything is deceptive in noting this or doing this once it is passed.

The Dems originally included the Doc fix in the healthcare bill. After talking with the CBO, they realized that it would drag the proposal down into the red. They then cut the doc fix from the bill and are now trumpeting the fact that the new bill will reduce the deficit, all while planning on passing the doc fix shortly afterward.

You don't see how that's deceptive?
 
The intent of the first bill was entirely deceptive.

If everything, that they want to pass, is so good.
Why not include together in this bill?

That's an opinion. You need much more support to move that to a place where anyone not prone to accept your spin will see it as honest.

Before you can have the perfect, you have to have something. Had your side sat down and honestly tried to seek reform, things might be different. We'd certainly have a better bill. But once the death panels and the socialism nonsense started, all real hope for decent reform was lost. SO now, we have to just get something down and hope we can improve it as time goes by, and I mean that for both parties and all Americans.
 
The Dems originally included the Doc fix in the healthcare bill. After talking with the CBO, they realized that it would drag the proposal down into the red. They then cut the doc fix from the bill and are now trumpeting the fact that the new bill will reduce the deficit, all while planning on passing the doc fix shortly afterward.

You don't see how that's deceptive?

Perhaps. But it isn't there now. And if they pass it later, here will be a vote, and I'm sure your side will not be quiet about it, right?
 
That's an opinion. You need much more support to move that to a place where anyone not prone to accept your spin will see it as honest.

Before you can have the perfect, you have to have something. Had your side sat down and honestly tried to seek reform, things might be different. We'd certainly have a better bill. But once the death panels and the socialism nonsense started, all real hope for decent reform was lost. SO now, we have to just get something down and hope we can improve it as time goes by, and I mean that for both parties and all Americans.

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.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. But it isn't there now.

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.

And if they pass it later, here will be a vote, and I'm sure your side will not be quiet about it, right?

Which has what to do with the question of whether it's deceptive? By then, the bill will have already been passed.
 
The doctor reimbursement fix needs to be passed regardless of whether the health care reform bill is passed or not. These are separate issues.
 
who cares about the memo

the point is its MESSAGE is the actualized behavior of leadership

hello

they ARE gonna attempt a doc fix, on the order of a THIRD OF A TRIL

that's a HUGE sum

they are NOT gonna pay for it, it will be off budget, accounted vs the deficit

which means that their underlying premise that their bill is a cost saver is a LIE

and, no, absolutely, they DO NOT want you/us talking about it...
 
The doctor reimbursement fix needs to be passed regardless of whether the health care reform bill is passed or not. These are separate issues.

If that's the case, why did the dems originally lump them together? Why does the doc fix need to be passed, and how is that unrelated to health care reform at large? What makes the doc fix less related than, say, student loan reform? Can you guess why the doc fix was removed while student loan reform was added in?

Don't just parrot what Ezra Klein said, I'd love answers to those questions in your own words.
 
The two issues, health care reform and doctor reimbursement, are related issues in that they both deal in health care and it is quite common to include related issues in one bill. But, they are independent in that if health care reform is not addressed for whatever reason, doctor reimbursement must still be addressed. Mixing the two allows some representatives to kill health care reform because they oppose fixing doctor reimbursement. Separating the two allows health care reform to be addressed in isolation and is a quite reasonable approach.
 
The two issues, health care reform and doctor reimbursement, are related issues in that they both deal in health care and it is quite common to include related issues in one bill. But, they are independent in that if health care reform is not addressed for whatever reason, doctor reimbursement must still be addressed. Mixing the two allows some representatives to kill health care reform because they oppose fixing doctor reimbursement. Separating the two allows health care reform to be addressed in isolation and is a quite reasonable approach.

How is it different from any other portion of the HC bill? The bill is not a monolithic block of policies, all of which are inextricably intertwined - it's a collection of policies that the Dems believe will help the health care situation. The HC bill includes, among other things:

-Changes in reimbursements for particular types of medical procedures
-Revenue raising provisions dealing with capital gains
-Subsidies for some families
-An expansion of Medicaid
-The creation of an individual mandate

Those seem like pretty diverse policies to me. Each of them have a different goal, a different method of implementation, and operate in conjunction with different existing policies. How can you say that all of those things are fundamental parts of the bill that must be included, but an adjustment to another type of doctor reimbursement must not?

The reason why those things are in the bill and why the doc fix is not is because those things don't put the bill in the red, while the doc fix does. Period.

I also notice that you ignored my question about student loan reform. Do you have an explanation for why that's an integral part of health care reform, but doctor reimbursement rates aren't?
 
as full of blarney as o'barry himself

the point is undeniable---obama's BILL claims to save some 138B versus the deficit

but it ACCOUNTS on a reduction in doc pay that AINT NEVER GONNA HAPPEN

by DESIGN

hello
 
Back
Top Bottom