• 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!

CBO deals another blow to House health plan

Kandahar said:
If it bankrupts the insurance industry, then that means that people are preferring the public plan. Aside from being an inherently good thing that the public plan is efficient enough to woo customers, it means that there would need to be more employees working on the public plan. So what makes you think that this will cost more jobs than it creates?
Click to expand...
The public plan will not be efficient--government is inherently inefficient in all its aspects. The public plan, being an extension of government bureaucracy, will act to maximize costs (thereby maximizing budget and bureaucracy) rather than minimize costs. The public plan, being government sponsored, does not even need to turn a profit (as with other government enterprises, such as Amtrak, Congress will simply cut a check each year for the losses).

Economic efficiency do not obtain where profit maximization and cost minimization are not the driving forces.

Nor does the public plan need efficiency. The proposed legislation tilts the playing field in favor of the public plan by limiting and burdening the activities of private insurance.
 
I think I might be onto the game here. Maybe the Dems are proposing something this outrageous, this ill-though of plan so that they fire up the opposition they knew they would face no matter what they tried to initially do, and then they could cut stuff out and people wouldn't be so pissed off about it, because it wasn't quite as stupid as what they previously tried to push through. Its kind of like setting the bar really low initially, so that whatever you try to do next, looks good. I do this all the time, I'm married.
 
WI Crippler said:
One of the things noted in an article RightinNYC quoted, mentioned that "The positive thing about "The Exchange" is that it would eliminate one of the problems, which was health insurance comapnies raising premium rates for consumers who came down with illness."
From what was explained to me, by RightinNYC, is that private insurers have to be a part of this "exchange" which is supposed to be the private competition for the public plan. So it looks like the "Exchange" is code for federal regulation.
If you make it illegal for insurance companies to raise rates, for taking on more risk, you are essentially making insurance illegal. Insurance is the transfer of risk, and if they are not allowed to charge an appropriate amount of money for the risk they are assuming, then they will go bankrupt. Thats not the government competing and winning because its better and more efficient, thats the government winning by bankrupting the private sector by making it illegal for the industry to operate in a fiscally responsible manner.
Click to expand...

It doesn't eliminate insurance. It just levels of the costs across the board for everyone. That should not affect the overall revenue/costs.
 
celticlord said:
The public plan will not be efficient--government is inherently inefficient in all its aspects.
Click to expand...

Then people won't buy it and you don't have to worry about it putting private insurers out of business.

celticlord said:
The public plan, being an extension of government bureaucracy, will act to maximize costs (thereby maximizing budget and bureaucracy) rather than minimize costs. The public plan, being government sponsored, does not even need to turn a profit (as with other government enterprises, such as Amtrak, Congress will simply cut a check each year for the losses).
Click to expand...

The problem is that the profit incentive, while appropriate for most businesses, is horrendous for something like health care. Private insurers do not typically compete on who can provide the best service for the lowest price; they compete on who can screw over the most customers and deny the most people coverage, so as to minimize their expenses.

But even so, if you're satisfied with your plan, no one is forcing you to take the public health plan.

celticlord said:
Economic efficiency do not obtain where profit maximization and cost minimization are not the driving forces.
Click to expand...

The current system is only "economically efficient" in the sense that the private health insurers are able to maximize THEIR profits while screwing the consumer. The purpose of health care reform is to help the American people get health care coverage, not help the health care companies be as economically efficient as possible.

celticlord said:
Nor does the public plan need efficiency. The proposed legislation tilts the playing field in favor of the public plan by limiting and burdening the activities of private insurance.
Click to expand...

The public plan is burdened by all the same limits (e.g. not charging sick people more or kick them off the plan) and then some. So if it's as bad as you say it will be, it shouldn't affect the private sector at all.
 
Kandahar said:
Why don't you think we can find $24 billion of waste in the annual budget? I can find more than that in the Department of Defense alone...and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that we can do far more than that....and once we have done that then perhaps we can discuss spending $239 billion on healthcare.

Until we have done that, your argument has no substance.

Kandahar said:
Anyway, why don't you devote your energy to opposing those wasteful programs instead of conceding they can't be stopped and instead opposing a truly useful program? That's like concluding that you can't afford your house payment because you're spending too much on beer.
Click to expand...
With your affinity for straw men we need to start calling you Scarecrow.

I do oppose wasteful programs. I do not concede they are inevitable and cannot be stopped. This is why I oppose the boondoggle the Anti-Republicans facetiously and farcically term "healthcare reform."

Kandahar said:
$24 billion per year is 0.16% of our GDP. We'll survive. For something as important as health care, that is an incredibly good deal.
Click to expand...

$24 billion per year is $24 billion of fresh IOUs that the government has no plan and apparently no intention of paying. Expecting others to pick up the tab indefinitely is a guaranteed way to come up short once you run out of other people's money--which will happen. If debts are not paid, no, we will not survive. Which makes this boondoggle the anti-thesis of a "good deal." It is a lousy deal, an unacceptable deal.
 
celticlord said:
I have no doubt that we can do far more than that....and once we have done that then perhaps we can discuss spending $239 billion on healthcare.

Until we have done that, your argument has no substance.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Are you suggesting that we should never spend any money on anything until we have a balanced budget?

celticlord said:
With your affinity for straw men we need to start calling you Scarecrow.

I do oppose wasteful programs. I do not concede they are inevitable and cannot be stopped. This is why I oppose the boondoggle the Anti-Republicans facetiously and farcically term "healthcare reform."
Click to expand...

What makes you think it will be a wasteful program, on the same level as any number of pork-barrel programs or useless DoD projects?

celticlord said:
$24 billion per year is $24 billion of fresh IOUs that the government has no plan and apparently no intention of paying. Expecting others to pick up the tab indefinitely is a guaranteed way to come up short once you run out of other people's money--which will happen. If debts are not paid, no, we will not survive. Which makes this boondoggle the anti-thesis of a "good deal." It is a lousy deal, an unacceptable deal.
Click to expand...

It is trivially easy to raise $24 billion per year. That is less than $100 per capita. This is a pittance and is not a valid reason to oppose something as important as health care reform. If it costs $24 billion per year, it's essentially revenue-neutral, because the difference between $0 and $24 billion is practically nil.
 
Kandahar said:
The problem is that the profit incentive, while appropriate for most businesses, is horrendous for something like health care. Private insurers do not typically compete on who can provide the best service for the lowest price; they compete on who can screw over the most customers and deny the most people coverage, so as to minimize their expenses.
Click to expand...
All businesses operate by maximizing profits and minimizing costs. That is not "screwing over" anyone.

Kandahar said:
But even so, if you're satisfied with your plan, no one is forcing you to take the public health plan.
Click to expand...
Except that by disallowing insurance companies the capacity to alter rates in response to changing risk profiles, the government will force private insurance companies out of the market, leaving only the government plan--which can run in the red indefinitely, because Congress will always cover its excesses.

Kandahar said:
The current system is only "economically efficient" in the sense that the private health insurers are able to maximize THEIR profits while screwing the consumer. The purpose of health care reform is to help the American people get health care coverage, not help the health care companies be as economically efficient as possible
Click to expand...
There is no denying that healthcare costs are grotesquely distorted in this country, and that the structure of modern health insurance is a major culprit. However, that fundamentally flawed structure is not being altered by these healthcare proposals. The defects of private insurance today are going to be present in the public plan should these legislative boondoggles become law. CBO Director Elmendorf put Congress on notice this past week of that very thing--these bills do not address the dynamics driving costs up.

Kandahar said:
The public plan is burdened by all the same limits (e.g. not charging sick people more or kick them off the plan) and then some. So if it's as bad as you say it will be, it shouldn't affect the private sector at all.
Click to expand...
The public plan is not "burdened" because the public plan, by being a public plan, has the luxury of sending the tab for the red ink to the taxpayer. It can lose money every year and its existence will never be threatened; no private plan ever has that luxury.

The public plan is not "burdened" at all. The public plan is the burden (or, rather, will be if this legislative train wreck gets through Congress).
 
Kandahar said:
That makes no sense. Are you suggesting that we should never spend any money on anything until we have a balanced budget?
Click to expand...
Yes. Expecting Congress to balance the budget "someday" is the same as telling Congress balanced budgets don't matter. We need to balance the budget TODAY.

Kandahar said:
What makes you think it will be a wasteful program, on the same level as any number of pork-barrel programs or useless DoD projects?
Click to expand...
A government program open to endless legislative meddling....gee....what are the odds it will be lean and efficiently run? (Hint, there are better odds playing the lottery).

Government programs are wasteful because government programs are politicized from the outset. DoD projects are wasteful because Congressmen use them to capture public dollars for their districts. Military bases are kept open for the same reason. All manner of pork is driven by the singular desire of Congressmen to direct tax dollars towards their home districts, without regard for the larger national interest; this is not surprising, considering that the larger nation does not elect nor re-elect said Congressmen. This public plan is one more mechanism for Congressmen to steer tax dollars to their districts--i.e., one more opportunity for pork and waste.

Medicare is fraught with waste and abuse. Medicaid is fraught with waste and abuse. The existing experiences of government healthcare do not lend credibility to the notion that government-financed public option will be anything but wasteful.

Kandahar said:
It is trivially easy to raise $24 billion per year. That is less than $100 per capita. This is a pittance and is not a valid reason to oppose something as important as health care reform. If it costs $24 billion per year, it's essentially revenue-neutral, because the difference between $0 and $24 billion is practically nil.
Click to expand...
No one ever goes bankrupt because of the first debts they incur--they go bankrupt because of the last debts they incur.

You are being disingenuous by referring to the $24 Billion per annum in isolation. It is not $24 billion of isolated debt, but $24 Billion of additional debt. It is $24 Billion of additions to the federal debt over and beyond what CBO Director Elmendorf has already testified to Congress is an unsustainable level of deficit spending and debt. That $24 Billion of debt added each year shortens the time frame until the economic contractions cause by the huge debt load begin to take hold.

$24 Billion is far from a pittance; given current financial conditions, it may very well be the straw that broke the financial camel's back.
 
Kandahar said:
It doesn't eliminate insurance. It just levels of the costs across the board for everyone. That should not affect the overall revenue/costs.
Click to expand...

If you artifically level the costs across the board, how does that not affect revenue/costs?

I said a while ago, that when government got into healthcare it would make it illegal for insurance companies to compete with them fairly, and then supporters would say "See, private insurance cannot compete with government." Which is exactly what is happening. The government is going to eliminate things like allowing companies to increase premium, to offset costs and maintain revenue. I wouldn't be suprised if in this bill somewhere, they tried to eliminate policy limits as well.

So its ok for the government to raise taxes, to pay for the cost of providing healthcare, but its going to be illegal for health insurance companies to raise premiums to pay for healthcare. Where are those Guiness guys??

2dt87fc.jpg
 
WI Crippler said:
If you artifically level the costs across the board, how does that not affect revenue/costs?

I said a while ago, that when government got into healthcare it would make it illegal for insurance companies to compete with them fairly, and then supporters would say "See, private insurance cannot compete with government." Which is exactly what is happening. The government is going to eliminate things like allowing companies to increase premium, to offset costs and maintain revenue. I wouldn't be suprised if in this bill somewhere, they tried to eliminate policy limits as well.

So its ok for the government to raise taxes, to pay for the cost of providing healthcare, but its going to be illegal for health insurance companies to raise premiums to pay for healthcare. Where are those Guiness guys??

2dt87fc.jpg
Click to expand...

Add on that they are intentionally planning on raising health care costs as well. They are planning on taxing medical product providers like pharmaceutical companies and other unnamed businesses.

There is no other expectation than private insurers going out of business or shrinking into obscurity.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
OK, let's get some perspective on this. It will increase the budget deficit by $239 billion over the course of 10 years. That's $24 billion per year...which is slightly more than we spend on NASA and slightly less than we spend on the Department of Agriculture.

Pocket change.
Click to expand...

Keynes would be proud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom