Received an email yesterday from Senator Cantwell announcing the 60-39 vote that advances the health care reform legislation to the Senate floor for debate.
In her email, she stated:
The health care reform bill is fully paid for, meeting President Obama's directive that it add "not one dime" to the federal deficit.
I hope she is right. Her email is going in the permanent file and we shall hold her to it.
Posted by Carter Mackley at November 22, 2009 02:11 PM | Email ThisWe are not fooled, Ms. Cantwell; but apparently you were.
Posted by: Michele on November 22, 2009 02:44 PMI expect more from our elected officials. Where's the pork?
Posted by: Doug King on November 22, 2009 03:01 PMAnd a little know fact, is that although the program won't start for a few years, we start paying for it in 2010. Think of it as seed capital for a really bad Dot Bomb idea. A lot of money up front for vaporware.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 22, 2009 03:10 PMWhat do the purveyors of "hope and change" plan to do?
Shackle our children and grandchildren with even more debt.
Posted by: Attila on November 22, 2009 03:20 PMThe CBO reports that, in their true first 10 years, the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans' taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion.
Remember how the Democrat hue-and-cry was that Newt Gingrich wanted to kill grandma because he wanted to reduce the growth of Medicare? Not cut Medicare's baseline, just slow down the increase? Well, now those same indignant dolts want to cut the baseline AND the increases, and they're all for it.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 22, 2009 04:36 PMThey vote the party line and parrot what they are told. They have no clue as to the cost.
Posted by: Vince on November 22, 2009 05:21 PMironically, the two senators from WA have done exactly what we the people who elected them have been asking for.
chew on that for a bit, when you think about how thoroughly washington voters rejected an anti-science candidate like mcgavick.
Posted by: mike on November 22, 2009 06:33 PMand mike, are you saying you actually believe Ms. Cantwell's claim?
Posted by: Michele on November 22, 2009 06:59 PMWhen the ultrasound clearly shows a human form that reacts so very humanly to being prodded, saying this couldn't possibly be human makes you sound like a member of The Flat-Earth Society.
Posted by: Michele on November 22, 2009 07:22 PMmike, do you know why that is?
Posted by: Gary on November 22, 2009 08:08 PMThe lamestream media has learned not to ask
follow up questions, thus creating garbage for so-called breaking stories.
The SNL skit with Obama's press conference with Ju Jintao was clever and spot on.
Posted by: KDS on November 22, 2009 08:47 PMDan, that is not true and I find it difficult to believe that you are not intentionally lying. I have corrected your mistakes on this before.
The CBO says both bills reduce the deficit. The House bill reduces the deficit by $138 billion. Then Senate bill reduces the deficit by $130 billion. (See Table 1 in each report.) Over the first ten years. Over the ten years after that. In fact, over the next fifty years the Senate bill will reduce the deficit, according to the CBO. The CBO also says the average household's wages will increase by $700 because of the effects of Senate bill proposals. These are the CBO numbers, not mine.
Carter, why are you implying that the CBO is wrong? I respect you a lot as a poster here, but you've gone through some effort to imply things rather than actually say them recently (yellow light timing and now deficit spending). Is the CBO wrong or not, in your opinion, Carter? Taking a position would probably be more illuminating and contributive than arguing by implication.
The typical argument is that Congress says it can control Medicare spending in ways that it will later overturn. First of all, if we enforce PAYGO rules in the legislative branch unlike under GOP rule then it won't be an issue. Second, if Medicare cost growth can't be controlled then the country will go bankrupt. This bill attempts a substantial amount of cost containment for Medicare. In the second decade of the Senate bill, net entitlement spending will decrease compared to no bill, even with tens of billions going to people buy insurance. This is the most serious bill in terms of controlling long-term deficit spending that most Senators will ever vote on.
Things can be undone by subsequent legislation, sure. But if the argument is that Congress can do nothing to fix Medicare cost growth, why don't we all just give up on our republic now? Because the country is plainly screwed if we cannot fix Medicare spending, and the GOP-proposed bills literally do not touch a single Medicare dollar.
Some ask, Why we should bundle important Medicare fixes with insurance reform? Because if Medicare spending will bankrupt us fiscally, the analogy is that continuing to leave tens of millions without health insurance will bankrupt us morally. I am tired of lacking a comprehensive medical system in a nation I am otherwise proud of. This bill is the first step in achieving universal health care and it is the first step in reducing Medicare spending as well as generally health care spending.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 22, 2009 08:52 PMYou are, provably, a coward and a liar. I linked to the source, and the source is the CBO. If you look at the first 10 years of the actual implementation of the plan - not the first 4 years of taxation and then 6 years of operation - you'll find it spends hundreds of billions beyond what is said.
John, you lie. That is not my judgment, that is the provable TRUTH from the CBO. You don't like it, that light makes cockroaches like you scurry away.
You lie. The plan will also force grandma and grandpa to give up the benefits they have PAID FOR over the last 45 years. You want them to die, you want them to move on so that others can get free medical.
You lie. The GOP has consistently tried to reform Medicare for the last 15 years, and you and your Slavery Party lying, filthy cockroach brothers lied about what would happen and what was being done. And now that you can steal from grandma and grandpa you will do it with a smile on your face.
And you are a coward, you cannot even answer the question if you ever served in the military.
How about it John? Did you ever serve in the military?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 22, 2009 08:58 PMFirst, not all revenue is gathered in the first three years. Second, so what? The bill reduces the deficit over the next 60 years. It reduces it over the next 10 years and the 10 years after that. Time does not just start six years from now because that's how you choose to frame "debt." The bill does not increase deficit spending according to the CBO. To imply otherwise is simply wrong.
The biggest annual deficit the bill has it in 2016 where it incurs as $14 billion deficit. (That is less than the size of the Sound Transit 2 mass transit expansion we pass locally.) That is more than offset by the $58 billion surplus in 2013. By 2019, the bill reduces the deficit by $8 billion a year. Deficit reductions only increase passed this point.
However, over the next 10 years, the deficit will increase substantially and it will continue ad nauseum beyond then.
That is not true. According to the CBO, the bill reduces the deficit in the first ten years. It reduces the deficit in the subsequent ten years. The Senate bill reduces the deficit annually from 2019 and on. You imply otherwise but the CBO says you're wrong. If you have some data to contradict the CBO, it'd be nice to discuss it.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 22, 2009 09:06 PMThe source was the NY Post, not the CBO. And that quote said nothing about the debt. Nice work, Dan, nice work.
If you look at the first 10 years of the actual implementation of the plan - not the first 4 years of taxation and then 6 years of operation - you'll find it spends hundreds of billions beyond what is said.
Where is your data, Dan? The CBO has no data like that.
And so what you're telling me is that if you create an arbitrary timescale that the picture looks different? Great, but that's unhelpful. We do not have arbitrary timescales. We have real time.
The CBO says the bill reduces the deficit over the next FIFTY years. Over the next decade. Over the decade after that. I do not need to create an arbitrary timeline, like you do, because the facts support me.
The plan will also force grandma and grandpa to give up the benefits they have PAID FOR over the last 45 years.
Name a single benefit that folks on Medicare will have to give up.
You want them to die, you want them to move on so that others can get free medical.
Very adult, Dan.
The GOP has consistently tried to reform Medicare for the last 15 years, and you and your Slavery Party lying, filthy cockroach brothers lied about what would happen and what was being done.
How? The sustainable growth rate that the GOP Congress voted to overturn during the Bush years?
And now that you can steal from grandma and grandpa you will do it with a smile on your face.
Medicare spending is unsustainable. We need to reform Medicare spending, specifically to preserve it. (And our fiscal stability.)
And you are a coward
That's really mature, Dan. I guess when you're wrong on the facts or numbers you have to resort to personal attacks, eh?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 22, 2009 09:15 PMANSWER THE QUESTION:
Did you ever serve in the nation's military?
Posted by: pbj on November 22, 2009 09:32 PMThat's how Canada pays for its "free" (rationed, mediocre) health care. Top marginal income tax rates range from 40% to over 50% (depending on the Province) for all income over $C65,000. Add GST and PST to that and it's even more regressive.
Posted by: JC on November 22, 2009 10:12 PMYou lie, yet again, and you prove you're a liar. You didn't even read the NY Post article, or you would have noticed:
The CBO reports that, in their true first 10 years, the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans' taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion.
Clearly, the CBO reports the true first 10 year cost WAY beyond what you and your fellow Slavery Party liars talk about.
You lie, John, and it's proven as such. You have zero credibility, no one believes you, no one trusts you. You are worthless, John, worthless.
And you're a coward because you demand answers from others that you refuse to provide yourself. You never served in the military, I know that for a fact. Prove me wrong, John, prove me wrong.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 22, 2009 10:21 PMThe revenues from the bill are no secret. An increase in the medicare tax to incomes above >$250,000 and a tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans. You imply these taxes on expensive insurance plans will be passed on to consumers. In fact, employers are expected to get cheaper insurance and raise wages by $700 for the average household in 2019. That wage increase is new taxable income, of course, so the government gets a percentage of it. (This all according to the CBO.)
But there is no broad-middle class tax increase.
Dan, that quote says nothing about the debt. Nothing. The figures for spending and taxes don't have to mature because of the hundreds of billions in Medicare savings.
Read the CBO report. Stop misrepresenting the truth.
You are worthless, John, worthless.
Real mature, Dan.
You never served in the military, I know that for a fact.
That's funny, because you just told me last week that you never served in the military.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 22, 2009 10:55 PMPersonally, I don't care if HCR reduces the deficit by $100B over the next ten years or increases it by that much. How much will the Iraq war contribute to the deficit over ten years, and what did we get for that? With HCR, we'd at least be providing health care coverage to tens of millions who wouldn't have it otherwise, and we'd be saving millions more from being screwed by insurance companies when they need help the most. The richest country on earth ought to be able to manage that for its people.
As for taxes, I don't see anything to get excited about. I don't expect my taxes to go up significantly, if at all, as a result of HCR. Everyone I know is in a similar position. Maybe some of those complaining could explain specifically how their taxes will increase and by how much.
Posted by: scottd on November 23, 2009 07:00 AMBrother.
Also, the Weekly Standard has done an analysis that should put the Dan / Jensen matter to rest. As you can see from the graph, Democrats would like to focus on the "First Ten Years" that include the taxation starting in 2010 to ramp up the plan, but BEFORE it actually has a cost. Whereas a more accurate interpretation is to look at the plan for the first ten years where it is operational and has costs. There, the cost will be $1.8 Trillion.
As usual, in order to make a Democrat plan look economically feasible, some chicanery is needed. And Democrats are unwilling to listen to the clear majorities of Americans who are against the plan.
GOP - Party of Hypocrisy.
Did the Bush Administration or the GOP sell Medicare part D as deficit neutral?
Did a majority of the US population support Medicare part D?
See, it's about the lying of the left in trying to sell this bill and sneaking it through against the wishes of the majority. It's called ethics and morals. Things most on the Machiavellian Left lack.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 23, 2009 09:21 AMThis health debacle depends on significant cuts in Medicare to try to be revenue neutral, right?
How come, just one year ago, the Democrats were pushing a bill to stop the mandated cuts in Medicare? In 2008 they were opposed to doing the VERY THING they say they'll do to make this bill revenue neutral?
Why is it bad for the GOP to cut Medicare payments by 10%, but it's OK for the Slavery Party to cut Medicare by 15%? Grandma would die with a 10% cut, but grandpa is fine with 15%? Bizarro world, John, Bizarro world...
You're a liar and you live in fantasy land, John, if you think that Medicare will be cut as drastically as these plans demand. Not even close. They will blow the budget deficit, their costs are higher than you claim, and it leaves 24+ million people uninsured.
The Slavery Party will NEVER cut Medicare because they don't want to lose the votes. So those "savings" are fictional. It's a plan that will never be implemented, meaning we'll blow hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending to cover maybe another 10 million people. If that.
But your masters in the Slavery Party say we need it, so you're all for it...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 23, 2009 10:30 AMSome people are natural-born suckers. See Global Warming for an example.
Posted by: Gary on November 23, 2009 10:48 AMBut that's not what I hear from Republican strategists. Their worry is the opposite of yours -- they're worried that if HCR passes, folks will see that there are no death panels or government takeover and they'll actually like it. They'll realize that Republicans have been lying to them. And then, Repubs will be screwed.
Makes you wonder who the GOP works for if they're so dedicated to blocking passage of something the people will like.
Posted by: scottd on November 23, 2009 11:35 AMGOP can't block passage. It's all yours. As a supporter, can you tell me how people in this country illegally will be taxed for the individual mandate?
And can you to tell me how the rationing will work for old people when doctors no longer accept them as patients?
You did not touch the fact that Cantwell was a liar by omission.
JJ says; "It reduces the deficit in the subsequent ten years. The Senate bill reduces the deficit annually from 2019 and on."
Bogus - That doesn't cut the mustard. Even if the CBO claimed this, I take issue with that analysis - look at the cost overruns that Medicare has accumulated and the track record. It would be plausible if a concerted effort to reduce waste from Medicare had taken place before and Tort reform was included. Just because reducing waste is buried in the 2,000 + pages does not mean that it will be enforced. Governmemt has a mediocre at best record at enforcing cost cutting measures. Yet, leftist hacks like you parrot talking points and obfuscate at will about how this can work.
As Hu Jintao said on SNL - Mr. Obama why don't kiss me before you do s*x ?
Funny, I don't recall saying they could. I agree with you, they probably can't. Better stock up on antacid and valium...
Posted by: scottd on November 23, 2009 12:31 PMCan you answer the questions of substance I posed to you? You should know the answers.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on November 23, 2009 12:38 PMSince you asked.
Kinda makes me wonder who your fellow fringe lefters are working for since you clowns are so dedicated to passing a bill the American people don't want.
Posted by: Hinton on November 23, 2009 12:44 PMThis "won't cost a dime" rhetoric reminds me of the ads on TV that say you save 25% if you buy that new sofa today for just $899.00.
If you buy the sofa you you don't SAVE anything because you just spent $899.00. Its all just marketing lingo.
I guarantee you that the folks who's taxes are going up to pay for this health care plan won't agree that it didn't cost us a dime! It will cost us all plenty.
I for one am tired of politicians adding Trillions of dollars to our national debt like there is no tomorrow. There is no doubt that tomorrow will come, and sooner than the democrats expect, and it will sure be fun paying for there waste and excess.
Posted by: Barry on November 23, 2009 12:51 PMThat's right, but I didn't say they could, nor did I say it was their responsibility to do so. I agree with you, they probably can't.
Can you answer the questions of substance I posed to you?
Sorry, Gary. I've looked all over -- didn't see any questions of substance from you.
Hinton: the GOP is working for the vast majority of the people
That would explain their recent electoral successes and huge majority in the Congress. But if you're right, then passing HCR will be a boon for the GOP because the backlash will surely sweep them back into power. We'll see... but I don't think Cantwell or Murray have much to worry about. That's gotta be really aggravating for you.
Posted by: scottd on November 23, 2009 12:54 PMcoughbullshitcough
Commie b!tch
Posted by: Sam Adams on November 23, 2009 02:59 PMhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html
"In other words, the Medicare commission would come to function much like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which rations care in England. Or a similar Washington state board created in 2003 to control costs. Its handiwork isn't pretty.
The Washington commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.
So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.
Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents--simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he's covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don't, Washington will not reimburse them for "inappropriate care."
Anyone who still believes that Cantwell is working for the best interests of her constituents is certifiably suffering from PDS (pathological delusion syndrome).
The criminals here are those in Congress that will levy this garbage upon our children - the massive debt and substandard or non-existent health care. Our descendants will die earlier than we do.
Posted by: yaddacubed on November 23, 2009 03:41 PMThey act like zombies, or cultists.
Posted by: Gary on November 23, 2009 03:47 PMThe GOP will get huge pickups in the mid-term elections. The problem is the amount of damage and, yes, evil that is being done in the mean time. See, I don't put politics above the nation; we would be much better off with the GOP making smaller gains and this abomination never passing.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 23, 2009 06:42 PMPS: GOP is 0 for 5 in congressional special elections since 2008. But I guess the pickups can begin any time...
Posted by: scottd on November 23, 2009 09:17 PMNo, because it wasn't. This bill is by the single measure we use to determine deficit neutrality: CBO scores.
How come, just one year ago, the Democrats were pushing a bill to stop the mandated cuts in Medicare?
The GOP has repeatedly passed bills that delayed the Medicare cuts. Here is the fill history of the SGR. The first [Medicare cut being put off] was passed in 2003, when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. The next came in 2005. Then there was one in 2006. Neither party supports the SGR -- it's unsustainable.
In 2008 they were opposed to doing the VERY THING they say they'll do to make this bill revenue neutral?
It is not the "VERY THING." It is a DIFFERENT THING. The payment reforms in this bill are unrelated to that issue.
Why is it bad for the GOP to cut Medicare payments by 10%, but it's OK for the Slavery Party to cut Medicare by 15%?
Strawman argument.
Democrats are not trying to blindly cut the Medicare payment rates, like Republicans proposed with the "sustainable growth rate" (which both parties have subsequently voted to suspend year after year). Democrats are proposing common-sense Medicare payment reforms. Almost no one has serious issue with these reforms, but they sure as heck are being distorted by you and others to scare old folks. Outside of the context of the Obama administration, a bill with these reforms would almost certainly get north of 70 votes in the Senate.
You're a liar and you live in fantasy land, John, if you think that Medicare will be cut as drastically as these plans demand. Not even close.
How can what I think make me a liar, genius?
As I said before, if you think Congress is unable to control the growth rate of Medicare then you might as well give up on this country now because we are going to go bankrupt. But this bill is the most serious attempt at Medicare payment reform since the program was introduced.
The Slavery Party will NEVER cut Medicare because they don't want to lose the votes.
This bill implements hundreds of billions in Medicare savings. What you're saying ignores the reality of the Senate bill.
It's a plan that will never be implemented
How will the bill be signed into law and then not implemented? That'd be unconstitutional.
Are you saying another bill will be signed to overturn the Medicare reforms? Well, I find that unlikely, but even if it does happen in the future if we keep PAYGO rules then it'll have to be deficit neutral. Which means the new bill will help cover the costs of health insurance reforms.
But if all the rules are suspended and Medicare spending goes back to the status quo, then this entire country will be screwed. Because of that threat, Democrats have proposed the more sweeping payment reforms to Medicare ever. What the hell is the GOP doing about it? Instead of offering constructive solutions, your party is just shrugging and saying "won't happen." That's not American idealism at work.
Gary, I think they've been putting off the Medicare cuts every year since 1997.
The SGR was passed in 1997. When you try to talk about policy, Gary, you just embarrass yourself. Stick to question begging and attacking Obama.
KDS, Provide the link to the CBO report to which you claim you refer, otherwise what you are saying is heresay.
I linked to both CBO reports of the House bill and the Senate bill in post #20. Read Table 1.
look at the cost overruns that Medicare has accumulated and the track record.
The CBO didn't exist when Medicare was passed. How can you have cost overruns when you don't have a cost estimate?
It would be plausible if a concerted effort to reduce waste from Medicare had taken place before and Tort reform was included. Just because reducing waste is buried in the 2,000 + pages does not mean that it will be enforced.
This bill does a significant amount to reduce Medicare waste. It is not "buried," but actually a significant amount of the bill. People don't talk about it very much because it's not as sexy or divisive as the public option or universal health care, but there are some really good reforms in there. (Nearly every health care economist would agree with that assessment -- you can find that out with your own research.)
I'd love to see more on tort reform. (The bill does fund different state projects to see how to best handle tort reform.) If the GOP would give us a single vote in the Senate, I'm sure they could have nearly anything they wanted. But when they're not at the table, they're not going to get whatever they want.
Governmemt has a mediocre at best record at enforcing cost cutting measures. Yet, leftist hacks like you parrot talking points and obfuscate at will about how this can work.
Look, we have two options:
1) We can just give up now and accept that America is going to go bankrupt because of health care costs.
2) We can try to honestly address the problem to the best of our political capacity.
I'll go with number 2.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 23, 2009 10:29 PMYour selective reading of the CBO reports is despicable. The true costs of these bills is trillions more than you say.
The SGR - yes, it was bad law, and it's been waived. And it will continue to be waived, it will not count towards savings. Your pie-and-ponies wishing nothwithstanding.
America is not going bankrupt because of health care costs; America is going bankrupt because of trillions of dollars of deficit spending. That's not because of Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, it's because we have a Congress - and now a President - who never saw a dollar they didn't want to spend (including dollars they never saw).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 24, 2009 07:28 AMMake it stop.
Posted by: Gary on November 24, 2009 08:09 AM"Look, we have two options:
1) We can just give up now and accept that America is going to go bankrupt because of health care costs.
2) We can try to honestly address the problem to the best of our political capacity.
I'll go with number 2."
Wrong, spanky ! There is another option that you and Congress leadership has willfully ignored.
3) We can dispense of politics and greed (these two push away common sense) and special interests and work toward a common goal of sensible reform that the majority support, unlike the current monster mess.
The opposition has repeatedly stated that they are willing to do this and that something needs to be done. Yes, it is swimming upstream and it will take a while longer and more of a concerted effort with less percs from Special interests. You ignore the fact that these people are serving us and that's what a majority of us want - nothing less.
Posted by: KDS on November 24, 2009 09:15 AMFalse. The GOP has made proposals and will make more for reforms to Medicare, but they were soundly rejected by the party in power and will continue to be. I don't see any attempt by the Democrats to want to incorporate GOP ideas that will produce cost savings. Why ? Because special interests rule; Politics is at work and where that happens American Idealism is thrown under the bus. Both sides are guility of letting special interests rule, but the Democratics are flagrant in this endeavor.
Posted by: KDS on November 24, 2009 11:10 AMThe SGR is not counted toward savings. You don't know what you're talking about.
America is not going bankrupt because of health care costs; America is going bankrupt because of trillions of dollars of deficit spending. That's not because of Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, it's because we have a Congress - and now a President - who never saw a dollar they didn't want to spend (including dollars they never saw).
Medicare is by far the biggest liability to our long-term deficit picture.
KDS, you have no idea of what the bill will do to reduce Medicare waste.
Yes, I do. It's public knowledge. Why don't you read up instead of attacking me for actually researching the issues?
Willful enforcement of the bill is the only thing that will reduce it and I and many others do not trust that this will occur. Special interests will invariably obstruct that path and it won't happen due to lack of political will.
So why don't we just give up on our country now? Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. Let's give up.
The opposition has repeatedly stated that they are willing to do this and that something needs to be done.
Republicans have decided it is better politically to oppose the bill than to support it. But the Medicare reforms are bipartisan and really open to almost no political dispute. The only reason you're focusing on it is for political expediency. You sound like you have almost no idea what the reforms are proposed, just the talking point that they're "won't work."
The GOP has made proposals and will make more for reforms to Medicare, but they were soundly rejected by the party in power and will continue to be.
Name a single one. And why isn't a single one in their BILL?
The GOP has the White House and the legislature for many years. Instead of reforming Medicare spending, they added a huge, unfunded prescription program. Oh, and funded Medicare Advantage plans at 14% more than Medicare... Also unfunded. All deficit spending.
I don't see any attempt by the Democrats to want to incorporate GOP ideas that will produce cost savings.
Because you're not paying attention. The Senate Finance committee worked for months on a bipartisan basis on many Medicare reforms. Those reforms have stayed.
Why ? Because special interests rule; Politics is at work and where that happens American Idealism is thrown under the bus. Both sides are guility of letting special interests rule, but the Democratics are flagrant in this endeavor.
Check out the article I linked to in this post.
One of the reforms is allowing a commission of experts to recommend Medicare payment reforms without amendments that cut savings -- a straight up-and-down vote. If the legislature can't add amendments for special interests, their influence is diminished. And yes, special interests such as doctors and specialists and device manufacturers have had an undue influence on Medicare. This bill tries to fix that.
Another is taxing expensive insurance plans. I know you probably dislike taxes, but this plan is opposed by a huge Democratic base: Unions. Yet, the Senate and the White House are taking on the unions to do what's good policy. I don't think you can ignore that.
Democrats are making tough choices. Getting a bill passed is tough work. It's a lot easier to say "no, start over!" But these Medicare reforms are serious efforts to help the program along. Republicans have decided to kill the bill at any costs, and that includes assaulting good policy. You and Dan are included in this bracket: You both have nearly no idea what the reforms proposed are or why they won't work, but they're terrible anyway because Democrats proposed them.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 24, 2009 11:54 AMThe GOP has the White House and the legislature for many years.
LIAR. They had the White House and the Congress for the first 5 months of the Bush Administration, then from 2003 through the end of 2006. That's it. Just barely over one term of President Bush, and never with anything near a strong majority.
Liar.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 24, 2009 12:09 PMCut the strawman and the victim crap, Jensen. The point I was making is that the research you are reading are ASS-umptions of believing what the bill says, it will do. You or anyone else are naive to believe that is what will happen. My conclusion is based on the record of how Government has functioned for the last 40+ years, whether Dems or Republicans are in the majority.
"Willful enforcement of the bill is the only thing that will reduce it and I and many others do not trust that this will occur. Special interests will invariably obstruct that path and it won't happen due to lack of political will.
So why don't we just give up on our country now? Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. Let's give up."
Weak argument and that's your idea because you're collectivist philosophy believes that if Government won't work, nothing will. My solution is for no increase in government control with restructuring and additional regulation whatever is necessary to improve competition for more affordability and more involvement of the patients. Medicare can be better dealt with as it is, but if there is another expansion of Medicare, I don't see the Government being able to control costs any better than they have. The government needs to demonstrate that they can cut waste out of Medicare, which they haven't done yet before I can trust.
"The opposition has repeatedly stated that they are willing to do this and that something needs to be done.
Republicans have decided it is better politically to oppose the bill than to support it. But the Medicare reforms are bipartisan and really open to almost no political dispute. The only reason you're focusing on it is for political expediency. You sound like you have almost no idea what the reforms are proposed, just the talking point that they're "won't work."
Patently false. You leave out the whole story and propagandize. See post #72 for the rest of the story. Are you vying to be Joseph Goebbels II or Bagdad Bob ?
"Democrats are making tough choices. Getting a bill passed is tough work. It's a lot easier to say "no, start over!" But these Medicare reforms are serious efforts to help the program along."
Right, So why don't the elected representatives who push this legislation want to be subject to it ?
In this case, starting over would yield a better result, not the Democratics, but to the people affected. The bill doesn't need to be started over, it needs to be reworked and the 2,000+ pages written by Special interests lawyers need to be reduced to 1/4 of that total. There is a lot of waste in what the Wall Street Journal calls the "Worst piece of legislation they have seen".
I reject your flaccid attempt to support this immoral and devious piece of legislation.
Posted by: KDS on November 24, 2009 12:31 PMAnd Democrats have had that control for 11 months and are actually addressing Medicare cost problems. Why didn't the GOP did over the four years they held power?
KDS, The point I was making is that the research you are reading are ASS-umptions of believing what the bill says, it will do. You or anyone else are naive to believe that is what will happen. My conclusion is based on the record of how Government has functioned for the last 40+ years, whether Dems or Republicans are in the majority.
No, they aren't assumptions. I'm reading research from the CBO. I'm reading the policies as they exist in the bills.
If Congress is incapable of reforming Medicare, why don't we just give up on America now? We're going to go bankrupt within 10 years.
Medicare can be better dealt with as it is, but if there is another expansion of Medicare, I don't see the Government being able to control costs any better than they have.
The bill does not expand Medicare.
The government needs to demonstrate that they can cut waste out of Medicare, which they haven't done yet before I can trust.
But you're opposed to the most serious effort to cut waste from Medicare in history. You say Congress can't do it, but then you say you want Congress to do it.
You're not making any sense.
Patently false. You leave out the whole story and propagandize. See post #72 for the rest of the story. Are you vying to be Joseph Goebbels II or Bagdad Bob ?
You said absolutely nothing of substance in post 72. Republicans walked away from the table a long time ago. They want to see Obama's bill fail so they can retake Congress.
Right, So why don't the elected representatives who push this legislation want to be subject to it ?
What the hell are you talking about? There isn't a special Medicare for Senators. The Medicare reforms apply to everyone. Totally unrelated to the Medicare portions, the health insurance exchange in the bill does apply to elected officials. They will lose their Federal health benefits and instead purchase insurance through the health insurance exchange.
The bill doesn't need to be started over, it needs to be reworked and the 2,000+ pages written by Special interests lawyers need to be reduced to 1/4 of that total.
Right, because if the bill were a lot shorter it would magically be better. Because you say so.
Not because you've identified any policies that would help Medicare. Not because you've identified how to insure more Americans and bend the cost curve. Nope, the policies are unimportant to you -- just the size of the bill. Unless the bill were shorter, then you'd attack it for being written by Democrats. Because why investigate policy, why be informed and understand the issues, when you can just look for the D or the R next to someone's name and ignore anyone who isn't in your party?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 24, 2009 01:17 PMShrug, you say that because it deviates from your talking points and I don't choose to buy your snake oil.
"Republicans walked away from the table a long time ago."
Once again, this is a lie, Bagdad Bob(JJ). The only reason they stayed away when they did is because the Dems locked them out - you spewed another half-truth.
"They want to see Obama's bill fail so they can retake Congress."
You are paranoid. You can't be serious - Now if you said because they don't like it or they prefer the private sector or patients having more of a voice, I could respect your view. Furthermore, the only evidence of this is heresay to back this up assertion. Rhetorically; Why is > 60% of the public against this bill ?
"Not because you've identified any policies that would help Medicare. Not because you've identified how to insure more Americans and bend the cost curve."
You have too much time on your hands. You are obfuscating and bloviating about bending the cost curve. I don't need to - it is the job of Congress to try and do it. You are wasting your time trying to re-invent the wheel and chasing your tail.
"The bill does not expand Medicare."
If the public option is adopted, it most assuredly will.
John,
Suffice it to say, you, like the embodiment of the Health Care bills are Orwellian. I have no respect for that.
Why is > 60% of the public against this bill ?
They're not. This is one outlier poll that already leans conservative (Rasmussen).
You have too much time on your hands. You are obfuscating and bloviating about bending the cost curve. I don't need to - it is the job of Congress to try and do it. You are wasting your time trying to re-invent the wheel and chasing your tail.
Wait, so it's Congress' job to fix Medicare? Then why do you think it's impossible for them to do it?
What is your point? That the only fixes for Medicare are ones that Republicans will vote for?
You are wasting your time trying to re-invent the wheel and chasing your tail.
No, I am trying to help fix important problems that could threaten the future of this nation. You are too busying an outraged populist to do any research into your opposition.
If the public option is adopted, it most assuredly will.
The public option is not Medicare. It's just another insurance company -- one that is widely supported by the public.
KDS, why are you trying to engage me in a policy debate? You obviously have no idea what the policies presented are, and don't want to learn -- it's Congress' job to be informed, you say. How can you call something Orwellian when you have absolutely no idea what it is?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 24, 2009 04:24 PMIn addition, you along with the Democrat congressional leadership are the party of schadenfreude.
Posted by: KDS on November 24, 2009 08:42 PMYou are ludicrous and full of crap. I don't profess to know some of the intricate details, but i am well aware of the big picture to know that you are spreading lies and half-truths about Health Insurance reform. You keep regurgitating the same old talking points and policy hack information from a biased leftwing source. You believe that since you think you know more details that you can snow people who you think don't know as much. Problem is you contradict yourself frequently. I don't have time to fact check you, but you have tainted your credibility. Get a clue, dude. You aren't convincing anyone here but yourself.
"Why is > 60% of the public against this bill ?"
"They're not. This is one outlier poll that already leans conservative (Rasmussen)."
Unacceptable answer and not true. Rasmussen is the best indicator poll around and you are the outlier or should I say out-liar. Quinnipac, Gallup show similar trends. You will find that the other polls, when asked if they approve the health care that the Democrats are proposing that considerably more people are against than for it and it is gradually increasing.
Posted by: KDS on November 24, 2009 08:57 PMWouldn't it be wonderful if we could let people who have insurance now keep their insurance, and add coverage for the 8 million or so who need assistance, and do it for about 1/4 the cost of this bill?
You know, so we'd have less disruption of the economy, we could cover those who really need it, and we don't add billions to our deficit - wouldn't that be even better for everyone?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 26, 2009 11:54 AMYou have no idea what the Medicare policies are, yet you call them Orwellian. You seem not to understand that you are the one engaging in demography and doublespeak, not me. You are an uninformed fool, following your party line and angry talk show hosts rather than doing any research or learning on your own. I'd rather you get angry and scream "ORWELLIAN" than waste my time on policy discussions you have absolutely no clue about. You have never made a cogent point about the bill in this entire thread. But you sure are angry -- about what? You're not even sure. It's not your job to know what your anger is about.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 26, 2009 12:30 PMRe: Health care bill(s) in Congress
"The bills before Congress would almost certainly ease the anxiety of the uninsured, those who watch with terror as their child or spouse grows ill, who face bankruptcy and ruin.
And the bills would probably do it without damaging the care the rest of us receive. In every place where reforms have been tried -- from Massachusetts to Switzerland -- people come to cherish their new benefits. The new plans become politically untouchable.
But, alas, there would be trade-offs. Instead of reducing costs, the bills in Congress would probably raise them. They would mean that more of the nation's wealth would be siphoned off from productive uses and shifted into a still wasteful health care system.
The authors of these bills have tried to foster efficiencies. The Senate bill would initiate several interesting experiments designed to make the system more effective -- giving doctors incentives to collaborate, rewarding hospitals that provide quality care at lower cost. It's possible that some of these experiments will bloom into potent systemic reforms.
But the general view among independent health care economists is that these changes will not fundamentally bend the cost curve. The system after reform will look as it does today, only bigger and more expensive.
As Jeffrey S. Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, "In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it."
Rather than pushing all of the new costs onto future generations, as past governments have done, the Democrats have admirably agreed to raise taxes. Over the next generation, the tax increases in the various bills could funnel trillions of dollars from the general economy into the medical system.
Moreover, the current estimates almost certainly understate the share of the nation's wealth that will have to be shifted. In these bills, the present Congress pledges that future Congresses will impose painful measures to cut Medicare payments and impose efficiencies. Future Congresses rarely live up to these pledges. Somebody screams "Rationing!" and there is a bipartisan rush to kill even the most tepid cost-saving measure. After all, if the current Congress, with pride of authorship, couldn't reduce costs, why should we expect that future Congresses will?
The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.
Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.
We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values."
Funny how that contradicts your assertions of lower costs. Go ahead, now say that he doesn't know what he is talking about and you will have solidified yourself as a bigger fool and hypocrite.
Posted by: KDS on November 26, 2009 07:24 PMI dislike arrogant progressive pricks like yourself trying to tell us that we are stupid and need to understand what you say.
Further research has time and time again revealed that you are either 1) using false hypotheses - likely from leftwing thinktanks or blogs or 2) you are politicizing Health Care for your own
personal benefit - whatever that is. I think you will get a better idea of what collective anger is come November 2010, if not before.
It's not your job to know what your anger is about."
WTF ? LOL - It sure as hell is. Another gaffe from John Jensen.
Posted by: KDS on November 26, 2009 07:44 PM