• 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!

Major reforms delayed until 2014

RightinNYC

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
Major reforms delayed until 2014 - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

The Senate bill pushes back implementation of major parts of the reform to 2014 -- a change from 2013 under the Finance Committee bill.

This is bad news for lawmakers who will need to explain to constituents why the elements that have attracted the most attention -- the public plan, the Medicaid expansion and the insurance exchanges -- won't be available for four years.

Some reforms would kick in earlier, Senate aides explained, but the big pieces would still be a ways off.
Click to expand...

Absolutely hilarious.

So the bill will only cost $849b over the first decade while reducing the deficit by $127b...but that's only because it's balancing ten years of revenues against six years of expenditures.

How on earth can anyone defend this?

Here's the CBO report for those who care: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_reid_letter_11_18_09.html
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Why do they keep calling it reform? Reform implies making something better. Last time I check the whole bill is nothing but ****.
Click to expand...
It's quite a dichotomy. "We need this health reform bill"! What health reform bill? All I see is just another health bill, implying that this bill is going to take away our health.
 
RightinNYC said:
Major reforms delayed until 2014 - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com



Absolutely hilarious.

So the bill will only cost $849b over the first decade while reducing the deficit by $127b...but that's only because it's balancing ten years of revenues against six years of expenditures.

How on earth can anyone defend this?

Here's the CBO report for those who care: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_reid_letter_11_18_09.html
Click to expand...


The CBO says modest deficit reduction in the subsequent decade as well ....

I'm not a fan of the big delay, and not sure if it's time to start arguing and debating specifics. There's still too much ground to cover before it gets close to its final form.


This CBO will probably kill the Dem support of filibuster, however.
 
More highlights:

--Covers 94 percent of non-senior residents. By 2019, about 31 million more people would have insurance, leaving about 24 million uninsured -- about 8 million of which would be unauthorized immigrants.
Click to expand...

It's amusing how during the initial stages of reform, we constantly heard that "50 million Americans are uninsured." This aggravated me, because the 50 million figure included 8-10 million illegal immigrants, thus making it 40-42 million Americans.

However, now that the bills are going through, the Democrats have completely reversed course. Now, they're hyping how the bill will cover "94% of Americans," a number that excludes illegal immigrants. If they were consistent with their earlier tactic of counting illegal immigrants, the number would be 92%. I wonder how often we'll see that number in their press releases.

It's really something.

--3-4 million would join the public plan or roughly 1 in 8 people buying insurance through the exchanges.
Click to expand...

The much heralded/maligned "public option" would cover approximately 1% of the country.
 
RightinNYC said:
More highlights:



It's amusing how during the initial stages of reform, we constantly heard that "50 million Americans are uninsured." This aggravated me, because the 50 million figure included 8-10 million illegal immigrants, thus making it 40-42 million Americans.

However, now that the bills are going through, the Democrats have completely reversed course. Now, they're hyping how the bill will cover "94% of Americans," a number that excludes illegal immigrants. If they were consistent with their earlier tactic of counting illegal immigrants, the number would be 92%. I wonder how often we'll see that number in their press releases.

It's really something.



The much heralded/maligned "public option" would cover approximately 1% of the country.
Click to expand...



The 94% ain't new .... it's just the Finance Committee version. And .... the meager availability of the public option pisses me off. No defenses offered for that. Hopefully they'll beef it up in amendment process, or conference.
 
I don't like the accounting tricks they do to make things seem less expensive. Just admit what it costs, and pass it, and implement it now. I also think it's a bit of a failure if it doesn't cover 100% of Americans. There's some good stuff in there no doubt, but I was hoping for more of an overhaul (and knew I'd never see it, but could hope).
 
jackalope said:
The CBO says modest deficit reduction in the subsequent decade as well ....
Click to expand...

That's in large part due to the fact that the added Medicare payroll tax is not indexed to inflation, meaning that it will hit an ever increasing number of people as time passes, much like the AMT currently does. What do you want to bet that we start seeing a "Medicare payroll tax patch" introduced year after year to "fix" that problem?

I'm not a fan of the big delay, and not sure if it's time to start arguing and debating specifics. There's still too much ground to cover before it gets close to its final form.

This CBO will probably kill the Dem support of filibuster, however.
Click to expand...

I mean, if that was their only goal, why not pull out all the stops? Delay the spending parts until 2019 while implementing the cuts/taxes now. Then they can claim to pass a health care bill that cuts the deficit by $1t while costing absolutely nothing.

This is just making a mockery of the budgeting process.
 
This once again proves that our politicians are incapable of writing legislation that doesn't screw their constituents.

I'll go ahead and make my sign for whenever I am homeless "College Educated, Will Work For Health Insurance"
 
RightinNYC said:
That's in large part due to the fact that the added Medicare payroll tax is not indexed to inflation, meaning that it will hit an ever increasing number of people as time passes, much like the AMT currently does. What do you want to bet that we start seeing a "Medicare payroll tax patch" introduced year after year to "fix" that problem?



I mean, if that was their only goal, why not pull out all the stops? Delay the spending parts until 2019 while implementing the cuts/taxes now. Then they can claim to pass a health care bill that cuts the deficit by $1t while costing absolutely nothing.

This is just making a mockery of the budgeting process.
Click to expand...


Their goal is not no implementation of the exchanges, so I'm not sure how to respond to that. Actually, I'm going to assume you don't mean that comment, it's so absurd.

I do hope the bennies are brought forward, and not pushed further back, though!

However, the list of reforms that do start earlier is significant (from you OP link).
 
jackalope said:
Their goal is not no implementation of the exchanges, so I'm not sure how to respond to that. Actually, I'm going to assume you don't mean that comment, it's so absurd.

I do hope the bennies are brought forward, and not pushed further back, though!
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the goal is to make the bill look good in order to get the other Dems on board and convince the public that this will come in under budget. There's absolutely no other reason to delay the benefits by 4 years.

I would love for someone to do a comprehensive analysis of how much this bill would actually cost if they were honest and tallied 10 years of revenues v. 10 years of expenditures.

However, the list of reforms that do start earlier is significant (from you OP link).
Click to expand...

And are negligible in terms of costs and revenues.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm saying that the goal is to make the bill look good in order to get the other Dems on board and convince the public that this will come in under budget. There's absolutely no other reason to delay the benefits by 4 years.

I would love for someone to do a comprehensive analysis of how much this bill would actually cost if they were honest and tallied 10 years of revenues v. 10 years of expenditures.



And are negligible in terms of costs and revenues.
Click to expand...



I have no idea what the goal is on that, since I've seen no reporting on it. However, I do hope it's changed, and the exchanges are implemented earlier, along with the other reforms.


As to the true cost - I see CBO saying significant deficit reduction in the first decade, small deficit reduction in subsequent decade. That adds up to all deficit reduction, and that's good in my book.
 
jackalope said:
I have no idea what the goal is on that, since I've seen no reporting on it. However, I do hope it's changed, and the exchanges are implemented earlier, along with the other reforms.


As to the true cost - I see CBO saying significant deficit reduction in the first decade, small deficit reduction in subsequent decade. That adds up to all deficit reduction, and that's good in my book.
Click to expand...

And that assumes that the level where taxation kicks in remains the same, which will almost certainly not be the case. Again, look at the AMT or the Doctor's pay cut. If we don't have the political will to force people to take a hit once, what makes you think we're going to have the will to do it over and over again in the future?
 
RightinNYC said:
So the bill will only cost $849b over the first decade while reducing the deficit by $127b...but that's only because it's balancing ten years of revenues against six years of expenditures.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the CBO says about the second 10 year period...

In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be small reductions in federal budget deficits if all of the provisions continued to be fully implemented.
Click to expand...
 
Our representatives and senators are in the wrong profession. They should be selling used cars. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
Our representatives and senators are in the wrong profession. They should be selling used cars. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

They may well be doing that soon...

Washington (CNN) -- Voters disappointed over health care and other legislative efforts have now sent 5 million "pink slips" to members of Congress, the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily said Tuesday.

Several Republican lawmakers joined WorldNetDaily figures to endorse the campaign Tuesday on Capitol Hill.

"These pink slips are a call for fiscally responsible and constitutionally responsible Americans," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

A pink slip is symbolic of job dismissal, a theme not lost on Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, who said members need to vote the will of the people or be fired in the next election.

Standing in front of posterboards on which dozens of the pink pieces of paper had been attached, Franks told reporters, "You are looking at just a sample of the 5 million pink slips that Americans have sent to Congress."

Those Americans, he said, are "people who are saying to members of Congress that 'we are fed up with the absolute out-of-control spending, and we are going to respond and do what we can to take our country back.' "
Click to expand...

Organizers of 'pink slip' protest claim 5 million sent to Congress - CNN.com
 
Redress said:
I wonder what the CBO says about the second 10 year period...
Click to expand...

But that projected deficit reduction is largely the result of two things:

1) The additional Medicare payroll tax, and
2) The continued cuts in Medicare reimbursements

I think it's a near-certainty that neither of those things will actually come to pass.

As to the first one, we can simply look at the AMT for an explanation of why it will never happen. When the AMT was passed, it imposed a minimum tax on a grand total of 155 households. However, because it was not indexed to inflation, it ended up covering a full 20% of the country. Because Congress will never let that happen, they continue to pass an AMT patch that moves the threshold upward.

Similarly the Medicare payroll tax only kicks in on those households earning over $250k annually. Since this qualifies as "the rich" under Obama's definition, there isn't much outrage. However, that number is also not indexed to inflation, which means that assuming a standard 3% rate of inflation, the additional payroll tax will hit every household earning over $138k by the end of the projected period. There is no way they will let that happen, and as a result, revenues will not even resemble what they're projecting.

As to the second one, just look at the doctor fix that they're trying to get through right now. As more and more people get added to the system and the number of doctors and specialists remain flat, Medicare payments will have to increase in order to keep doctors within the system. If we're already throwing a couple hundred billion at this problem already, imagine what it will be like 10 or 20 years from now.

This whole process just makes me sad more than anything else. It's like going to a movie that you've already seen, screaming for the actors not to open the door, and then watching as they get stabbed in the balls yet again. I know how this will play out, and there isn't **** I can do to change that.

ugh.
 
The Medicare payroll tax doesn't bother me a bit. Medicare recipients now are not paying for all they take out in benefits. I find the prospect of a non-inflation adjusted surtax on higher incomes to be fine.

The Medicare cuts are a problem. However, I believe that some form of Paygo will pass the Senate (ala Ryan and Feingold's proposals), and any fixes will be paid for when passed.

I have no beef with any part of the cost structure of the Senate bill, from what I've heard so far. The narrow public option, and limited exchange access bugs me. I hope Wyden's proposal gets a hearing in the amendment process, or a more robust form of the public option gets passed.


Edit: I've also heard of a proposed 5% surtax on plastic surgery. LOVE IT !!
 
jackalope said:
The Medicare payroll tax doesn't bother me a bit. Medicare recipients now are not paying for all they take out in benefits.
Click to expand...

How are those two thoughts related? The people paying the additional Medicare payroll tax are not the ones receiving the benefits.

I find the prospect of a non-inflation adjusted surtax on higher incomes to be fine.
Click to expand...

And you and I may see it as fine now, but my point is that it's a near certainty that Congress will start seeing it as "not so fine" at some point over the next 20 years.

The Medicare cuts are a problem. However, I believe that some form of Paygo will pass the Senate (ala Ryan and Feingold's proposals), and any fixes will be paid for when passed.
Click to expand...

The current incarnation of Paygo is an absolute joke.

The PAYGO system was reestablished as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress

...

Less than one year later though, facing widespread demand to ease looming tax burdens caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress abandoned its pay-go pledge.[16] The point of order was also waived for the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which included revenue reducing provisions and increases in spending that increased the deficit, which paygo was designed to prevent. It was again waived in May 2008, upon the consideration of the 2007 U.S. Farm Bill by the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO]PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
RightinNYC said:
But that projected deficit reduction is largely the result of two things:

1) The additional Medicare payroll tax, and
2) The continued cuts in Medicare reimbursements

I think it's a near-certainty that neither of those things will actually come to pass.

As to the first one, we can simply look at the AMT for an explanation of why it will never happen. When the AMT was passed, it imposed a minimum tax on a grand total of 155 households. However, because it was not indexed to inflation, it ended up covering a full 20% of the country. Because Congress will never let that happen, they continue to pass an AMT patch that moves the threshold upward.

Similarly the Medicare payroll tax only kicks in on those households earning over $250k annually. Since this qualifies as "the rich" under Obama's definition, there isn't much outrage. However, that number is also not indexed to inflation, which means that assuming a standard 3% rate of inflation, the additional payroll tax will hit every household earning over $138k by the end of the projected period. There is no way they will let that happen, and as a result, revenues will not even resemble what they're projecting.

As to the second one, just look at the doctor fix that they're trying to get through right now. As more and more people get added to the system and the number of doctors and specialists remain flat, Medicare payments will have to increase in order to keep doctors within the system. If we're already throwing a couple hundred billion at this problem already, imagine what it will be like 10 or 20 years from now.

This whole process just makes me sad more than anything else. It's like going to a movie that you've already seen, screaming for the actors not to open the door, and then watching as they get stabbed in the balls yet again. I know how this will play out, and there isn't **** I can do to change that.

ugh.
Click to expand...

Superstore.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive! :mrgreen:
 
RightinNYC said:
How are those two thoughts related? The people paying the additional Medicare payroll tax are not the ones receiving the benefits.

And you and I may see it as fine now, but my point is that it's a near certainty that Congress will start seeing it as "not so fine" at some point over the next 20 years.

The current incarnation of Paygo is an absolute joke.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The two thoughts are related b/c I've long that that Medicare recipients should be paying more for their benefits. Charging more in premiums, means tested, was a method I've been in favor of in the past; but this is fine too.

I like that it's not inflation-adjusted. Accomplishes the charging more, but means-tested, in an approximate way.


The Senate does not currrently have any form of PayGo, IIRC. Just the House.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom