• 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!

New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Deuce said:
CBO says it's going to reduce the deficit so saying that it will "cost trillions" is rather disingenuous wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

CBO revised their estimate and double counted so called Medicare savings. Nothing the govt. does has ever reduced costs so tell me why this bill changes that record?
 
Conservative said:
Try responding to the facts presented.
Click to expand...

It was a fair question. I have meant very few people who didn't think they were really smart and everyone who didn't see it didn't have a clue. However, this means factually that many who think they know everything are really the clueless.

In other words, it's not helpful to tell people they're clueless. Doing so opens the door to examination, and we may well prove to be the clueless ones.

Make sense?

As for responding to the facts, I have. And with documentation. ;)
 
Conservative said:
CBO revised their estimate and double counted so called Medicare savings. Nothing the govt. does has ever reduced costs so tell me why this bill changes that record?
Click to expand...

On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions. Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).

Congressional Budget Office - Health Care
 
Boo Radley said:
It was a fair question. I have meant very few people who didn't think they were really smart and everyone who didn't see it didn't have a clue. However, this means factually that many who think they know everything are really the clueless.

In other words, it's not helpful to tell people they're clueless. Doing so opens the door to examination, and we may well prove to be the clueless ones.

Make sense?

As for responding to the facts, I have. And with documentation. ;)
Click to expand...


Since the healthcare bill hasn't gone into affect yet how can anyone post facts as to the outcome? Only a review of history will give you an indication of the future results. You seem to ignore history and get excited when you get PROJECTIONS from the CBO. Tell us what the track record is for the CBO? Your so called facts are opinions. I gave you the facts about the doctor shortage, the MA healthcare costs, the ER usage by the insured but you prefer opinions from others who buy what Obama tells them. Sorry, Boo, but our Liar in Chief seems to have you fooled. He has zero leadership skills and remains in campaign mode still.
 
Boo Radley said:
On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions. Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).

Congressional Budget Office - Health Care
Click to expand...

CBO recognized that the bill had 10 years of taxes and 6 years of so called bernefits. In addition they counted Medicare savings twice. Based upon the history of the CBO please tell me why you buy their PROJECTIONS and ignore the data they were given to make those projections?
 
Conservative said:
Since the healthcare bill hasn't gone into affect yet how can anyone post facts as to the outcome?
Click to expand...

Yet you do exactly that, loudly, almost every day on this forum. :doh
 
misterman said:
Yet you do exactly that, loudly, almost every day on this forum. :doh
Click to expand...

The troll is back, hardly, I post historical data which is fact. Suggest you learn the difference between a fact and a projection. Are you going to tell me that the MA program is a success and that costs haven't risen? Are you going to tell me that there isn't a doctor shortage in this country now? Are you going to tell me that all those people reported as uninsured cannot afford insurance? Are you going to tell me that the CBO projections are accurate?
 
Conservative said:
CBO recognized that the bill had 10 years of taxes and 6 years of so called bernefits. In addition they counted Medicare savings twice. Based upon the history of the CBO please tell me why you buy their PROJECTIONS and ignore the data they were given to make those projections?
Click to expand...

I've seen your side use the CBO to support your case. It works both ways. I doubt anyone's predictions will be exactly right, but this is the office charged with answering this question for congress.
 
Conservative said:
Since the healthcare bill hasn't gone into affect yet how can anyone post facts as to the outcome? Only a review of history will give you an indication of the future results. You seem to ignore history and get excited when you get PROJECTIONS from the CBO. Tell us what the track record is for the CBO? Your so called facts are opinions. I gave you the facts about the doctor shortage, the MA healthcare costs, the ER usage by the insured but you prefer opinions from others who buy what Obama tells them. Sorry, Boo, but our Liar in Chief seems to have you fooled. He has zero leadership skills and remains in campaign mode still.
Click to expand...

Know? Silly word for such things. We can make reasonable predictions, and expect to have to reassess as things move forward. This is not new, or different from anything else people do anywhere, in both the private and public sectors.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've seen your side use the CBO to support your case. It works both ways. I doubt anyone's predictions will be exactly right, but this is the office charged with answering this question for congress.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have used CBO numbers to show how ridiculous they really are. CBO accuracy on projections is very poor at best so tell me why your CBO numbers are correct but when countered by other CBO numbers those numbers are incorrect?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, I have used CBO numbers to show how ridiculous they really are. CBO accuracy on projections is very poor at best so tell me why your CBO numbers are correct but when countered by other CBO numbers those numbers are incorrect?
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, at best. And you're welcome to it. But you need, as we all do, some evidence to support your opinion. What ultimately happens will largely depend on what we do next. But what is really needed is for more reform, not backing up to the place we were at. In other words, democrats need to go farther than they have.
 
Boo Radley said:
That is your opinion, at best. And you're welcome to it. But you need, as we all do, some evidence to support your opinion. What ultimately happens will largely depend on what we do next. But what is really needed is for more reform, not backing up to the place we were at. In other words, democrats need to go farther than they have.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in this bill that reforms healthcare to make it better. it does provide access but how does that create better quality healthcare? Still no answer, just same old argument, different day.
 
Conservative said:
There is nothing in this bill that reforms healthcare to make it better. it does provide access but how does that create better quality healthcare? Still no answer, just same old argument, different day.
Click to expand...

The person who has access gets better care than the person who doesn't. I was talking with a nurse this weekend who was seeing people at a free clinic. She was discouraged by the the hopelessness of only being able to help for a day. While what they did was slightly better than nothing, many had long term problems that needed regular meds they could not afford, continued treatments they would not get, and followup and education that would not be available for them until they got better access. This seems pretty easy to follow, and I can't understand why you don't see this as better care.
 
misterman said:
Sure I do, when it does.

No excuses. Let everyone else see the evidence too.
Click to expand...

I have proven you wrong on numerous occasions, i.e. doctor shortage, insured using the ER's, and the MA medical cost increase after their healthcare reform.

Tired of proving you wrong, having you never admit it, and then simply moving on to some other topic.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's an important distinction that I think many miss. ;)
Click to expand...

I think what many on the left miss is the history of govt. spending on social programs and they also love the CBO when it supports their point of view but not when it refutes their point of view. That is what I was showing. There are two sides to the CBO story but you only gave one. What I gave was history which is defined in the following

The question of the accuracy of the CBO’s estimates remains. Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute asserts that the CBO has a reputation for making mistakes, “in part because there is no attempt to measure how a bigger burden of government has negative macroeconomic effects, but also because the number crunchers do a poor job of measuring the degree to which people (recipients, health care providers, state and local politicians, etc.) will modify their behavior to become eligible for other people’s money.” Mitchell adds that this issue is “compounded by similar mistakes for revenue estimates from the Committee on Taxation,” who also overlooks macroeconomic effects and behavioral changes.

Likewise, Mitchell asserts that all of the estimates are incorrect, specifically that new spending will be more than predicted, the tax increases won’t generate as much as expected, and future restraints in spending are highly unlikely.

Mitchell also explains that if there is indeed a phase-out of subsidies in 2019, taxpayers with modest incomes will face marginal tax rates of nearly 70 percent.

Overall, the government is inept at predicting healthcare spending. When Medicare was created in 1965, the government estimated that the cost of the program would be $12 billion by the year 1990. In actuality, the program cost $110 billion in 1990, and to date costs $500 billion. Also in 1965, Medicaid was created and was expected to cost $1 billion annually, but has developed into a $250 billion program.
 
Conservative said:
I think what many on the left miss is the history of govt. spending on social programs and they also love the CBO when it supports their point of view but not when it refutes their point of view.
Click to expand...

I realize you think this. But you thinking it doesn't make it so. Personally, I noted the CBO in both cases, and without accepting either case was likely 100% accurate. The bottom line for me is this: Doing nothing was unacceptable. And if we allowed the fear mongers to once again derail reform, we would be left in the same hole we're been in for decades, leaving us with rising costs for less and less service, and more and more people unable to access reasonable care. A journey of a thousands miles begins with a single step, even if it is an imperfect step.
 
Boo Radley said:
I realize you think this. But you thinking it doesn't make it so. Personally, I noted the CBO in both cases, and without accepting either case was likely 100% accurate. The bottom line for me is this: Doing nothing was unacceptable. And if we allowed the fear mongers to once again derail reform, we would be left in the same hole we're been in for decades, leaving us with rising costs for less and less service, and more and more people unable to access reasonable care. A journey of a thousands miles begins with a single step, even if it is an imperfect step.
Click to expand...

I hardly call spending trillions a small step forward. Identify the problems and solve the problems instead of just throwing more people into the system. The point is Medicare results are being ignored just like SS and every other govt. sponsored social program. Just throw more money at the problem since "it isn't your money" but the problem is it is your money and for some reason you prefer demonizing private business for waste and fraud when you control whether or not you invest in those companies and ignore your "investment" in the Federal govt. and its waste and fraud. It does seem that you and others support "spending in the name of compassion" without ever getting true compassionate results. You do however create dependency and that keeps politicians employed.
 
Conservative said:
I hardly call spending trillions a small step forward. Identify the problems and solve the problems instead of just throwing more people into the system. The point is Medicare results are being ignored just like SS and every other govt. sponsored social program. Just throw more money at the problem since "it isn't your money" but the problem is it is your money and for some reason you prefer demonizing private business for waste and fraud when you control whether or not you invest in those companies and ignore your "investment" in the Federal govt. and its waste and fraud. It does seem that you and others support "spending in the name of compassion" without ever getting true compassionate results. You do however create dependency and that keeps politicians employed.
Click to expand...

You're spending now. And solving the problems call for more government intervention than you're willing to support at the moment. The public option would have been a better step. One single payer system would be better still and make medicare and medicaid unnecessary.

But, those aren't in the cards. So, we have to work at stopping the bleeding until we can get something better. Think of it as work in progress.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're spending now. And solving the problems call for more government intervention than you're willing to support at the moment. The public option would have been a better step. One single payer system would be better still and make medicare and medicaid unnecessary.

But, those aren't in the cards. So, we have to work at stopping the bleeding until we can get something better. Think of it as work in progress.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that we are spending the amount this bill will cost? The public option would increase the size of govt, remove incentive and drive private business and jobs out of this economy. Open your eyes and stop being blinded by socialist rhetoric. Get actual facts like the cost of Medicare today vs. when it started. Try another number the cost of govt. before the Great Society and the cots of govt. now? All that social engineering and what do we have to show for it, 13 trillion in debt and you want to add to it.
 
Conservative said:
Prove to me that we are spending the amount this bill will cost? The public option would increase the size of govt, remove incentive and drive private business and jobs out of this economy. Open your eyes and stop being blinded by socialist rhetoric. Get actual facts like the cost of Medicare today vs. when it started. Try another number the cost of govt. before the Great Society and the cots of govt. now? All that social engineering and what do we have to show for it, 13 trillion in debt and you want to add to it.
Click to expand...

Health care costs are currently a troubling burden on families and businesses. Yet without reform, this burden will increase dramatically. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the cost of a family premium under employer-provided health insurance will increase by approximately 70 percent (after inflation) in the next nine years. This cost growth will have cascading effects across the economy as businesses trim benefits and workers lose their coverage.

According to researchers at Harvard University, a 20-percent increase in premiums costs 3.5 million workers their jobs, causes millions more to move from full-time to part-time work, and cuts the average income by approximately $1,700. CBO predicts that this 20- percent increase will occur over the next four years.

health_fig1.jpg


America Without Health Care Reform
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom