• 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

jackalope said:
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.
Click to expand...

But this isn't forcing Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits. It's forcing people aged 25-65 to pay more in taxes to provide those benefits to people aged 65-110.

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

My point is that whatever its current value, it will not last.

The Senate does not currrently have any form of PayGo, IIRC. Just the House.
Click to expand...

And given that the House waives Paygo whenever it feels like it, what makes you think that the Senate version would be any more effective?

It's like saying that you've quit smoking, except for when you want a cigarette.
 
RightinNYC said:
But this isn't forcing Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits. It's forcing people aged 25-65 to pay more in taxes to provide those benefits to people aged 65-110.

My point is that whatever its current value, it will not last.

And given that the House waives Paygo whenever it feels like it, what makes you think that the Senate version would be any more effective?

It's like saying that you've quit smoking, except for when you want a cigarette.
Click to expand...


I understand the issue re: current workers and retirees. I'm okay with it. It's not perfect, but at least it's fixing something going forward. I don't know how many retirees can pony up to actually pay for what they are getting. Yup, it's not fair to us younger people, but I don't know what to do about that. Not being able to adequately address that doesn't mean fixing it going forward isn't a good idea.

Re: PayGo. I believe Ryan's and Feingold's bill is structured differently than the House's, and it will be legislation, rather than Congressional Rules. And, yes, the current House form isn't perfect, but at least they have something. The GOP eliminated PayGo rules instituted by the House. The Dems just brought it back in the last couple years. I'd like to see it legislated, as Ryan/Feingold want to do. I'm sure their legislation will include exceptions and work-arounds, should the need arise. Flexibility in the case of need or emergency is desired, too much isn't.


Perfection can't be the enemy of good.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Pay WND $30 to mail my Congressman something that a 19 year old intern will immediately drop in the shredder? No thanks.
Click to expand...

Clicking on a WND link is more support than I want to give them.
 
RightinNYC said:
Pay WND $30 to mail my Congressman something that a 19 year old intern will immediately drop in the shredder? No thanks.
Click to expand...

Did you by chance read post 17?

They are not shredding them.... at least the ones that want to keep their jobs aren't.

Of course you can alway call your Congress critter and leave a measage on their machine.
 
Crunch said:
Did you by chance read post 17?

They are not shredding them.... at least the ones that want to keep their jobs aren't.
Click to expand...

Trust me, they're all shredding them.

Of course you can alway call your Congress critter and leave a measage on their machine.
Click to expand...

Or I could jab myself in the dong with an ice pick. It would have a similar effect on the healthcare bill's progress.
 
Here we go:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate’s newest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don’t kick in until the fifth year of that “10 year” period. And the true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 billion.

The Democrats cite the bills’ projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 — versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill’s “first 10 years,” only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill’s real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), CBO projects the bill’s costs to be $1.8 trillion — double the price Reid is advertising.

And that’s even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run “public option” wouldn’t cost a cent.
Click to expand...

Fantastic.

It also adds:

Among the $802 billion that Reid would divert from Medicare is $431 billion in cuts in doctors’ pay (far more than the misleading figure for 2010-19). The bill says it would cut payments to doctors for services to Medicare patients by 23 percent in 2011 — and never raise them back up, ever.

No one who’s been in Washington for more than five minutes actually expects this reduction to occur — and if it doesn’t, then the Senate health bill would increase our deficits by $286 billion in its true first decade, according to CBO projections.
Click to expand...

Reid's fuzzy math
 
RightinNYC said:
Among the $802 billion that Reid would divert from Medicare is $431 billion in cuts in doctors’ pay (far more than the misleading figure for 2010-19). The bill says it would cut payments to doctors for services to Medicare patients by 23 percent in 2011 — and never raise them back up, ever.
Click to expand...

Add that to this little tid bit, and it's easy to see the destruction of health care in the US.

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
Click to expand...

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
Add that to this little tid bit, and it's easy to see the destruction of health care in the US.



Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
Click to expand...

If any of you have friends or family on Medicare/Medicaid you already know that many doctors will simply refuse to see you because of cost caps. What these people are often left with are lower quality doctors and facilities.

I suspect we will see alot more of this with any government public option.
 
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.

How on earth can anyone defend this?
Click to expand...

The Obamabots will defend anything providing it's blessed by the Messiah himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom