• 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!

'Delay’ suddenly not a dirty word at White House

If, as you suggested, we should model a UHC plan off of Medicare, you first need to explain why Medicare is a good option. Specifically, if its that good, then why do people buy more insurance when they already have insurance?

  • Everyone's in it by default.
  • Medicare Part A is bare minimum coverage available at no charge subsidized by taxpayers.
  • Medicare Part B is better than bare minimum, available at very reasonable close and subsidized by taxpayers.
  • The negotiating power of Medicare is unparalleled in US history.
  • You don't need no stinkin' website to enroll. ;)
  • Supplemental coverage is available through the private sector for very reasonable cost.
  • Supplemental insurance is not mandatory.
  • You don't need 10,535 pages to re-invent the wheel.
 
Impossible for them to believe in that bill. None of them read it when they passed it and Obama sure didn't read it when he signed it. The reason they may be willing to delay now is, it's hot garbage and it's beginning to smell. Just like the GOP told them it was from the very beginning. The Dems though, played politics with peoples lives, jobs, health insurance and so on, shut the government down in their political theater and now are starting to fess up to the facts of their disastrous creation because they are stuck in it.

The only good news for the Dems in any of this is so many of their supporters couldn't spell cat if you gave them the c and the a. But the productive people in America will continue to see how unfair this law is and many more will as soon as their rate increases hit or their hours get cut.

But keep spinning. It's pretty funny.
It's amazing how much hatred you have for people with a D behind their name, and from this, are so willing to spew such falsehoods.
 
  • Everyone's in it by default.
  • Medicare Part A is bare minimum coverage available at no charge subsidized by taxpayers.
  • Medicare Part B is better than bare minimum, available at very reasonable close and subsidized by taxpayers.
  • The negotiating power of Medicare is unparalleled in US history.
  • You don't need no stinkin' website to enroll. ;)
  • Supplemental coverage is available through the private sector for very reasonable cost.
  • Supplemental insurance is not mandatory.
  • You don't need 10,535 pages to re-invent the wheel.


So would you model UHC off Part A, essentially offering a catastrophic plan, for all? That was the Heritage Foundations idea in 1993, with participation being optional, but participation granting a tax credit offset.

With Medicare reimbursement rates drastically lower than typical private insurance, who will make up the difference in the reimbursement? Doctors accepting less payments, or increased tax rates?
 
It's amazing how much hatred you have for people with a D behind their name, and from this, are so willing to spew such falsehoods.

No falsehoods in what I typed out.
 
Although they are stopping short of delaying the individual mandate, it is clear now that the WH is severely nervous about the roll out, and what their tantrum over the shut down, and their refusal to even negotiate the delay is now going to cost them politically.

This may have turned out to be the most brilliant strategy of the TEA Party to date...Think about it...Cruz, and the rest, have solidly established the republican party as the party against Obamacare, and the individual mandate. Now, it is failing right out of the gate, and those in the know, are saying that there are worse problems as it continues to go into effect. Setting up the antics of demo's, of refusing to talk, name calling, and the whole gambit of basic Alinsky tactics that demo's today employ as reasons NOT to vote for them any time in the future.

Obama's Job Approval Declines to 44.5% in 19th Quarter

Poll: Nearly half say replace everyone in Congress

I think demo's are in for a rough 2014, and 2016...It is possible to see the house majority strengthen, and the loss of the Senate to repub control in 2014, regardless of the MSM running cover for demo's as expected.

What say you?

Although I still blame the Republicans for starting the shutdown, I will find it quite amusing if the delay is granted by the White House. That is because around day 10 or there about the Republicans dropped their demand to defund Obamacare and instead replaced it with the one year delay in implementing it. I do think the White House and everyone involved in Obamacare knew of the problems to come but were in a hurry to get the thing implemented on schedule, good, bad or indifferent.

If the delay is granted by the White House, what this means to me is Obama, Reid etc. should have accepted the Republican offer on day 10 and ended the shutdown then. It seems the last roughly 7 days of the shut was over a fight that that the White House and company probably knew they would have to do anyway. The last seven days was a needless fight and a waste of time, that is if the delay is granted.

In a political sense, the last 7 days seems like an act to twist that knife into the backs of the Republicans a few more times. Although the Republicans deserved a whole lot of twisting for starting this needless shutdown in the first place. I one looks at this from afar and not through partisan red or blue colored glasses, it may seem the GOP actually won an important battle to them during the shut down. I wonder if this aspect, that is if the delay is granted, will be reported?
 
So would you model UHC off Part A, essentially offering a catastrophic plan, for all? That was the Heritage Foundations idea in 1993, with participation being optional, but participation granting a tax credit offset.

With Medicare reimbursement rates drastically lower than typical private insurance, who will make up the difference in the reimbursement? Doctors accepting less payments, or increased tax rates?

No, I'd model it after Part A, Part B and Part D. Medicare might need tweaking, but it's one helluva lot less a boondoggle than this 10,000-page monstrosity. Right now Medicare Part B costs $104 a month. There are no subsidies available. If it costed 25% more . . . or the premium were progressive based upon income . . . it could afford a slightly higher reimbursement.

I don't KNOW how Medicare reimbursement compares to regular insurance. But I know that most every doctor takes Medicare patients, with or without a supplement, so I guess there's money to be made there.
 
An entrepreneur all my life, I have struggled with health insurance from time in memorial.

You chose your line of work and knew you would have to find your own insurance if you wanted it. You could have chosen a different line of work and had an employer pay most of your insurance tab. But you didn't choose to do that.

This is no different than millions of other people who choose more cash money over a job with benefits. Or any other reason to pass on a job with benefits.

I suspect had health insurance been near the top of your priority list early on, you would have had more affordable health insurance all along.
 
No, I'd model it after Part A, Part B and Part D. Medicare might need tweaking, but it's one helluva lot less a boondoggle than this 10,000-page monstrosity. Right now Medicare Part B costs $104 a month. There are no subsidies available. If it costed 25% more . . . or the premium were progressive based upon income . . . it could afford a slightly higher reimbursement.

I don't KNOW how Medicare reimbursement compares to regular insurance. But I know that most every doctor takes Medicare patients, with or without a supplement, so I guess there's money to be made there.

Private insurance pay 130% of Medicare's reimbursement.(see http://www.aha.org/content/00-10/081209costshift.pdf).

Medicare, like SS, relies on a large population paying taxes while receiving no benefits, and a smaller population paying no taxes, while receiving benefits. Clearly that model doesn't fit UHC, because everyone is getting a benefit throughout.

Just based on what the Feds have pegged "affordable" insurance at, 9.5% of your AGI, and you would have to factor in an increase to cover the poor, I suspect your UHC tax rate would be somewhere in the 13-18% range.
 
You chose your line of work and knew you would have to find your own insurance if you wanted it. You could have chosen a different line of work and had an employer pay most of your insurance tab. But you didn't choose to do that.

This is no different than millions of other people who choose more cash money over a job with benefits. Or any other reason to pass on a job with benefits.

I suspect had health insurance been near the top of your priority list early on, you would have had more affordable health insurance all along.

An entrepreneur is an entrepreneur. We should be grateful for them. They create jobs, invent things and represent the spirit on which our country was founded. In the past, too damned many people were stuck in jobs they hated, gave up their dreams and ambitions, all because they couldn't buy health insurance at any price. That's a damned shame.

You tell me I could have gotten a job with health insurance if it was a problem. Pfft. I preferred to retire at 40.
 
You chose your line of work and knew you would have to find your own insurance if you wanted it. You could have chosen a different line of work and had an employer pay most of your insurance tab. But you didn't choose to do that.

This is no different than millions of other people who choose more cash money over a job with benefits. Or any other reason to pass on a job with benefits.

I suspect had health insurance been near the top of your priority list early on, you would have had more affordable health insurance all along.

I think the thing missing here is whose responsibility is healthcare? I always was taught that it was my responsibility and if I couldn't handle it then there would be consequences for the poor choice that I made. The problem today is there aren't any consequences for failure thus no incentive to prevent failure.

I further learned that the uninsured in my state have their bills mostly picked up by the taxpayers of the state not the Federal Taxpayers so that makes me wonder why ACA? Pretty good idea why ACA, can you say "slush fund?" can you say the end game of a single payer where the Federal Govt. takes the money, spends it how they see fit and the American taxpayers fund that debt?

This is a hot button issue on the part of many here who don't understand the role of the Federal Govt. which isn't to provide healthcare for individuals. Medicare and SS are trillions in unfunded liabilities that seem to mean nothing to those supporting ACA therefore they have no problem creating another slush fund for politicians to buy votes.
 
Although I still blame the Republicans for starting the shutdown, I will find it quite amusing if the delay is granted by the White House. That is because around day 10 or there about the Republicans dropped their demand to defund Obamacare and instead replaced it with the one year delay in implementing it. I do think the White House and everyone involved in Obamacare knew of the problems to come but were in a hurry to get the thing implemented on schedule, good, bad or indifferent.

If the delay is granted by the White House, what this means to me is Obama, Reid etc. should have accepted the Republican offer on day 10 and ended the shutdown then. It seems the last roughly 7 days of the shut was over a fight that that the White House and company probably knew they would have to do anyway. The last seven days was a needless fight and a waste of time, that is if the delay is granted.

In a political sense, the last 7 days seems like an act to twist that knife into the backs of the Republicans a few more times. Although the Republicans deserved a whole lot of twisting for starting this needless shutdown in the first place. I one looks at this from afar and not through partisan red or blue colored glasses, it may seem the GOP actually won an important battle to them during the shut down. I wonder if this aspect, that is if the delay is granted, will be reported?

Check that:

House GOP's Third Shutdown Offer Would Delay Individual Mandate By One Year

The 'delay the mandate' offer was the day BEFORE the shutdown began...furthering your amusing point
 
PMedicare, like SS, relies on a large population paying taxes while receiving no benefits, and a smaller population paying no taxes, while receiving benefits. Clearly that model doesn't fit UHC, because everyone is getting a benefit throughout.

This is a good point. But not something that can't be easily overcome. A Medicare tax of .9% is not something that can't be adjusted upward. When you add up Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, taxpayers are going to be paying lots of $$ into healthcare. May as well pour it into a single-payer system, in my opinion. And one that's already proven to work...
 
Although I still blame the Republicans for starting the shutdown, I will find it quite amusing if the delay is granted by the White House. That is because around day 10 or there about the Republicans dropped their demand to defund Obamacare and instead replaced it with the one year delay in implementing it. I do think the White House and everyone involved in Obamacare knew of the problems to come but were in a hurry to get the thing implemented on schedule, good, bad or indifferent.

If the delay is granted by the White House, what this means to me is Obama, Reid etc. should have accepted the Republican offer on day 10 and ended the shutdown then. It seems the last roughly 7 days of the shut was over a fight that that the White House and company probably knew they would have to do anyway. The last seven days was a needless fight and a waste of time, that is if the delay is granted.

In a political sense, the last 7 days seems like an act to twist that knife into the backs of the Republicans a few more times. Although the Republicans deserved a whole lot of twisting for starting this needless shutdown in the first place. I one looks at this from afar and not through partisan red or blue colored glasses, it may seem the GOP actually won an important battle to them during the shut down. I wonder if this aspect, that is if the delay is granted, will be reported?

It's even funnier than your think because the House has been offering the postponement compromise since at least mid-July, about the same time the Healthcare.gov site was failing its preliminary tests and contractors were advising the system wouldn't be ready.
 
No, I'd model it after Part A, Part B and Part D. Medicare might need tweaking, but it's one helluva lot less a boondoggle than this 10,000-page monstrosity. Right now Medicare Part B costs $104 a month. There are no subsidies available. If it costed 25% more . . . or the premium were progressive based upon income . . . it could afford a slightly higher reimbursement.

I don't KNOW how Medicare reimbursement compares to regular insurance. But I know that most every doctor takes Medicare patients, with or without a supplement, so I guess there's money to be made there.

You are definitely right that Medicare is less of a destructive spaggetti pile than this thing.

However, Medicare is already going broke, features massive amounts of fraud, and uses the reimbursement schedule to off-load costs onto private plans (though doctors are increasingly refusing to take Medicaid or Medicare patients for that reason). We don't have the financial ability to expand Medicare to the entire U.S. Even if we got rid of the entire DOD we couldn't raise enough funds to be able to support expanding Medicare.

Medicare is going to collapse unless we start to reduce its' expenditures very soon. And it is going to take Social Security with it. That's not crazy ole cpwill saying it - it's the CBO, the IMF, and the President's own Deficit Reduction Commission saying it. Expanding those expenditures in the dramatic fashion you are discussing simply isn't within the realm of fiscal plausibility.
 
This is a good point. But not something that can't be easily overcome. A Medicare tax of .9% is not something that can't be adjusted upward. When you add up Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, taxpayers are going to be paying lots of $$ into healthcare. May as well pour it into a single-payer system, in my opinion. And one that's already proven to work...

We are currently collecting record high tax revenues, but we would need about 6% more of GDP in revenue in order to expand Medicare in the way you are suggesting. So, about 24.5-15% of GDP, all told.

We have never, under any tax regime, to include back in the day when we had 90% marginal rates, ever collected anything close to that amount.

tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg



Futhermore, Medicare costs are already set to explode, which means that that ~24.5-25% of GDP requirement will be the opening minimum, and that the requirement will only get higher.
 
You are definitely right that Medicare is less of a destructive spaggetti pile than this thing.

However, Medicare is already going broke, features massive amounts of fraud, and uses the reimbursement schedule to off-load costs onto private plans (though doctors are increasingly refusing to take Medicaid or Medicare patients for that reason). We don't have the financial ability to expand Medicare to the entire U.S. Even if we got rid of the entire DOD we couldn't raise enough funds to be able to support expanding Medicare.

Medicare is going to collapse unless we start to reduce its' expenditures very soon. And it is going to take Social Security with it. That's not crazy ole cpwill saying it - it's the CBO, the IMF, and the President's own Deficit Reduction Commission saying it. Expanding those expenditures in the dramatic fashion you are discussing simply isn't within the realm of fiscal plausibility.

The problem with Medicare and SS is the unified budget created by LBJ and the subsequent spending of excess money in the account on the idea that the account would be replenished at sometime in the future. That never happened as the bureaucrats in DC continued to spend the money and replace them with IOU's that have to be funded at some time in the future. Can someone please tell me where the money is going to come from to fund those IOU's?

I would never support a single payer system unless the Unified budget was dissolved and laws in place to protect the taxpayers from the abuse that has occurred with their SS and Medicare contributions.
 
The problem with Medicare and SS is the unified budget created by LBJ and the subsequent spending of excess money in the account on the idea that the account would be replenished at sometime in the future. That never happened as the bureaucrats in DC continued to spend the money and replace them with IOU's that have to be funded at some time in the future. Can someone please tell me where the money is going to come from to fund those IOU's?

I would never support a single payer system unless the Unified budget was dissolved and laws in place to protect the taxpayers from the abuse that has occurred with their SS and Medicare contributions.

Issuance of public debt.
 
This is a good point. But not something that can't be easily overcome. A Medicare tax of .9% is not something that can't be adjusted upward. When you add up Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, taxpayers are going to be paying lots of $$ into healthcare. May as well pour it into a single-payer system, in my opinion. And one that's already proven to work...

Here is a stat for you: The US ranks #3 in the world in public health care funding per capita.

Since the US Government pays more per capita in health care than almost any European state already, why not take all the medicare and medicaid money and create a UHC system with just that money that THEY ALREADY HAVE and let it compete with the private market, or let the private market supplement the government system?

Are democrats so stupid that they couldn't figure this out or just too power hungry to pass a health care bill that doesn't screw over the middle class in the process and doesn't require more taxes?

In other words, Maggie, you are defending a turd that is as much killing what YOU want as it is killing what I want. You just aren't being hurt as badly as the rest of us in the process.
 
You are definitely right that Medicare is less of a destructive spaggetti pile than this thing.

However, Medicare is already going broke, features massive amounts of fraud, and uses the reimbursement schedule to off-load costs onto private plans (though doctors are increasingly refusing to take Medicaid or Medicare patients for that reason). We don't have the financial ability to expand Medicare to the entire U.S. Even if we got rid of the entire DOD we couldn't raise enough funds to be able to support expanding Medicare.

Medicare is going to collapse unless we start to reduce its' expenditures very soon. And it is going to take Social Security with it. That's not crazy ole cpwill saying it - it's the CBO, the IMF, and the President's own Deficit Reduction Commission saying it. Expanding those expenditures in the dramatic fashion you are discussing simply isn't within the realm of fiscal plausibility.

Well, when you're only charging people $104 a month from age 65 through their death for hospital insurance? Why is that surprising? And why shouldn't people be charged more? At $208 a month ad infinitum it's also quite a bargain. Indexing for income alone would bring billions into the fund.

The Medicare Supplement plans aren't subsidized. My mom is 86. She pays $305 a month for her Supplement. So, at aged 86, she pays $409 a month for her hospitalization. Complete coverage.

And as doctors begin to see the writing on the wall, we're getting closer to a model that doesn't over-treat the elderly. The amount of money thrown at terminal disease in the form of faux cures is going to decrease as time goes on.
 
Issuance of public debt.

The uninsured is state debt not national public debt and those IOU's that replaced "borrowed" money from the entitlement funds have to be funded, where is the money going to come from? You are right however in that the govt. will have to borrow more money to fund those IOU's or print it, both bode poorly for the taxpayers.

My error in responding to quickly
 
Last edited:
In other words, Maggie, you are defending a turd that is as much killing what YOU want as it is killing what I want. You just aren't being hurt as badly as the rest of us in the process.

I agree with much of what you said, but I don't understand this ^^.
 
Yours is also spin... It was written by the insurance companies that intend to benefit from Obamacare... Which was virtually identical to the plan given by Romney.

When will Americans realize that they are run by an equivalent of a mafia that shares power over election cycles. And just like a mafia card game, sure they all hate each other, and every so often they kill (politically in this case) each other... But if someone outside threatens the game (tea party) they will both step up to defend the game in their own ways.

Oh and btw, the sentiment of the tea parties is growing... Tangibly. It's not about the tea party, even if / when it does it will come back in a stronger incarnation...

Not true. But don't take my word for it. Here is an article from Forbes Magazine. Romney's plan WAS the Heritage Foundation plan.
 
Well, when you're only charging people $104 a month from age 65 through their death for hospital insurance? Why is that surprising? And why shouldn't people be charged more? At $208 a month ad infinitum it's also quite a bargain. Indexing for income alone would bring billions into the fund.

The Medicare Supplement plans aren't subsidized. My mom is 86. She pays $305 a month for her Supplement. So, at aged 86, she pays $409 a month for her hospitalization. Complete coverage.

How much does a standard single two-day visit to the hospital cost? If you are (say) 86 which means that you average 12-20 days a year, you aren't really buying health insurance - you are pre-paying for your costs, and receiving a huge subsidy when you do so.

And as doctors begin to see the writing on the wall, we're getting closer to a model that doesn't over-treat the elderly. The amount of money thrown at terminal disease in the form of faux cures is going to decrease as time goes on.

That is sadly incorrect - as we expand the third-party-payment model, what we see is less price sensitivity, not more. What induces doctors to treat old people less is simply that Medicare/Medicaid will not reimburse them as well for taking care of the old or the poor.

Unfunded Liability for Medicare at current runs in the $60 Trillion range. There isn't a way to pay that by bumping up premiums a couple hundred dollars, and there sure isn't a way to do so if we are expanding it to pay for three to four times as many people.
 
I agree with much of what you said, but I don't understand this ^^.


Which part don't you understand? The ACA is a turd, you are defending it, and it is standing in the way of what you and I actually want (which, granted, are two different things) and costs millions of people in skyrocketing premiums and deductibles or costs them their insurance altogether and in many cases costs them their jobs. That it potentially makes your dealings with insurance companies somewhat easier pales in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom