Obama's worker bees in CMS - Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - of the HHS Department analyzed Harry Reid's ObamaCare bill and found what we expected: ObamaCare would make costs rise, not fall. The total cost of health care for Americans would increase $234 billion over the next decade.
Cuts to Medicare, while expanding its covered population, would make reimbursements so low that providers would quit serving Medicare patients, which would reduce care for seniors. Surprise. And, indeed, expecting to make his deep cuts to Medicare to actually take place is unrealistic, according to the Obama administration.
His higher taxes on drugs, medical devices and health insurance would cause higher insurance premiums. Higher? Yes, higher, as in higher costs. And, though the number of "insured" would increase, millions of people would still be uninsured.
... The report was prepared by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which specializes in long-range cost evaluations for Medicare. It analyzed the total public and private cost of the health care bill over the next 10 years, in contrast to earlier studies by the Congressional Budget Office that said the measure would minimally lower the record-setting federal deficit over the decade.See also Robert Costa at The Corner. He mentions a negative report from Mayo Clinic and opposition by the AMA and hospitals to Harry Reid's expansion of Medicare. Posted by Ron Hebron at December 12, 2009 11:20 AM | Email ThisUnder the Democrats' plan, according to the analysis, health care spending would rise by an additional 0.7 percent between 2010 and 2019, mostly the result of more people getting medical services.
Although the increased access to health care would drive up costs, the report found that the bill would accomplish Mr. Obama's goal of expanding health care coverage. About 93 percent of Americans would have health insurance under the plan, removing about 33 million people from the ranks of the uninsured.
Perhaps the most startling revelation in the report, however, was an assessment that cuts to the Medicare program could undermine it.
"Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable," the report said. "Absent legislative intervention, [physicians] might end their participation in the program, possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries."
Or, we could just stick with the Republican plan. Do nothing and tell those 33 million to pound sand.
Posted by: scottd on December 12, 2009 01:17 PMDriving off the cliff like the Dems are trying to do with this piece of garbage legislation is nothing but stupid and obtuse. It flips the bird to 80% of the people who like their health care coverage and don't want Obamalosi-Reid care.
Posted by: KDS on December 12, 2009 01:22 PMLike this lie here.
Rank hypocrisy... the hallmark of the leftist.
Posted by: Hinton on December 12, 2009 02:07 PMIn the next few years look for less pharmaceutical and technological innovations originating from the U.S., and for a flood of physicians (many of them liberals) suddenly finding early retirement attractive. Many of them would rather hit the links than work for the ultra low reimbursements the libs have in store for them.
Look for an increase in our national mortality rates for prostate and other cancers because Obama will restrict (ration) access to technologies and treatments. If you're a law abiding 90 year old citizen and need surgery, it will be too bad for you irrespective of your personal wishes. The liberals will decide it is your time to ride carousel.
If you're a 30 year old illegal alien wino, daisy chaining homosexual or junkie, hot damn your day has come!
Welcome to the brave new world of liberalism.
And anything to say about the reduced service for seniors, and the contraction in the number of health care workers?
I thought you leftists hated it when businesses cut payrolls to save a buck; how is the Senate bill any different?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 12, 2009 02:47 PMAnd let's remember Obama's and his liberal henchman's real goal with this---eliminate your private coverage and force everyone ultimately in "15-20" years into government-controlled medicine which would make us like Canada....long waits, and grossly inadequate medical infrastructure. Even worse, whereas Canada relies on sending several of their citizens HERE to get care that they can't provide (notice that we don't have to do that here--and liberals wrongly say Canada's system is great. that's proof that it isn't), we could send no one ANYWHERE. Watch out, America; This is a "fix", but not the kind you thought. Rather, it's "the fix is in" kind.
Posted by: Michele on December 12, 2009 03:06 PMpffffftt
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 12, 2009 03:26 PMHealth insurance industry trade groups opposed to President Obama's health care reform bill are paying Facebook users fake money -- called "virtual currency" -- to send letters to Congress protesting the bill....
Don't wait! Get yours!
Here's some of the benefits I see in the proposed plans:
1) I won't have to worry about my insurer dropping me or making it difficult to renew if my wife or I become seriously ill.
2) I won't have to worry about not being able to switch to another insurer due to pre-exisiting conditions if my current insurer becomes even more predatory, or if I move.
3) My son will have an easier time obtaining insurance when he finishes school because insurers won't be able to use a minor pre-existing condition as an excuse to deny or limit coverage.
4) If I or someone I know should become temporarily unemployed, it will be easier to maintain coverage.
5) Seniors I know (hi Mom!) will have better prescription drug coverage.
Sounds good to me!
Ron tells me I need to worry about higher taxes and costs, but I don't see any of the items he's mentioned affecting me or anyone I know -- at least not significantly. I guess I'm supposed to worry about higher taxes for couples making over $1M/yr but I really can't work up much concern over that.
So that leaves ideological arguments that just don't persuade me -- I have more practical things to worry about.
Posted by: scottd on December 12, 2009 04:19 PMEnvy is such a flattering characteristic.
Posted by: Gary on December 12, 2009 04:30 PMYou're naive. And you're displaying exactly the kind of ignorant response congress hoped they would dupe you into.
Because that's the kind of thing people said about the Alternative Minimum Tax back in 1969, when it only hit people making $200k, which is today about $1.1 million with inflation. However, congress never indexed that AMT for inflation, so now it is hitting thousands of taxpayers it was never supposed to hit.
Congress--while knowing exactly what it's going---isn't indexing the 5.4% Surtax for inflation, either. They know this is how to tax you and others while getting your naive consent. They know it will hit more and more people as they do not index it for inflation. Some of us are already onto what they are doing and aren't stupid enough to fall for that.
Posted by: Michele on December 12, 2009 04:46 PMIt's all a crock. Liberals don't know a single solution for any issue that hasn't cost the country billions. Liberals whine constantly about how they never have enough money "for the children". It's hardly a mystery. Liberals have $100,000 dollar a year psychologists in nearly every elementary school. They bloat the bureaucracy everywhere because that is what they do. They are bureaucrats. The are attorneys. They are community organizers. The are teachers. The are college professors. They don't produce anything. They don't invent anything. They don't do a single thing to build the economy. Instead they suck it dry. They don't build new businesses. They don't plow fields. They look down their snooty Yale and Harvard noses at real Americans. They treat Sarah Palin, who has more real life experience than our current President has had with disdain. It's all coming back on them now.
And then, (big surprise), they still never have enough money. Translation? Liberals will never have enough of the public's money. They are irresponsible people who do not do a proper job of managing the pubic funds they are entrusted with . They simply believe that they can plead year after year as they always do that the "children" are in need of of new funding from the hard working people that allow liberals to build their little fiefdoms.
I cannot imagine why anyone, given the history of liberal failures would endorse the left's attempt at "healthcare reform". They have never managed the publics' money responsibly.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 12, 2009 07:24 PMYet, that's who we have in power in the US Congress. Let Harry and Nancy press ahead with their low 30s agenda. Let Obama focus on parties and plane flights instead of the centrist view that will be needed to succeed, It won't be long before it all comes back to bite.
The reality is simple. Obama never figured that so many of us would call his bluff. I am enjoying living a more austere life in exchange for the destruction of his agenda. And there are millions like me, who when faced with massive economy and business destroying taxes, simply shrug.
Ideas have consequences.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 12, 2009 08:01 PMPeople don't want this. Yet, democrats are shoving it down our throats and have stopped listening to people. The democrats with their worse-than-anything-we've-seen spending are apparently on some kind of suicide mission.
Posted by: Michele on December 12, 2009 08:07 PMWe saw evidence of this when a panel who is involved with HC overhaul recommended mammograms not begin until a woman reaches 50 (which would lower costs of course) - information that probably should not have been reported. It let the cat out of the bag with a glimpse into the quality of health care that this overhaul would bring with it.
Obama needs to visit the wizard of oz in search of a heart and an infusion of leadership. He is letting a Congress that has been co-opted by the liberal progressive globalist wing of the Democratic Party ramrod the most criminal piece of legislation in our lifetime. If this becomes law, may they all rot in hell !
Posted by: KDS on December 12, 2009 09:09 PMThey all know it's a big lie. They know national healthcare will simply allow them to increase their ability to control our lives which is what socialists have always wanted. That's also why they push the "climate change" hoax. It's always about political control. It is what they live for. What a wonderful bunch of people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 12, 2009 09:53 PMscottd, who is going to take care of you when you have taxed the wealthy enough that they decide to just leave?
Envy results in *lower* revenue, even if it makes you *feel* better.
Posted by: Gary on December 12, 2009 09:58 PMIt's so easy to divide people when you play to their base envy.
Posted by: Gary on December 12, 2009 10:02 PMThere is no future in these grand liberal failures. Everything is a range of the moment impulsive gamble. The youthful naïveté of scottd is gleeful for gauranteed coverage today, only to be denied it as his end of life needs fall outside the future least common denominator.
It's a grim trade that sane people call selling your soul. And that's why we say the devil is on the receiving end of these types of transactions.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 13, 2009 03:47 AMThere is no future in these grand liberal failures. Everything is a range of the moment impulsive gamble. The youthful naïveté of scottd is gleeful for gauranteed coverage today, only to be denied it as his end of life needs fall outside the future least common denominator.
It's a grim trade that sane people call selling your soul. And that's why we say the devil is on the receiving end of these types of transactions.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 13, 2009 03:47 AMNow the Party was mad,
'Cause they wanted real bad
To deep-six health care
and Obama.
They had nary a plan--
Just the funeral man
And Fox's hot air
melodrama.
So, they called in some priests
who said "Gays are all beasts--
But fertilized eggs, those are persons.
God's real concern
(which could make your soul burn)
Is if ovum or stem-cell
life worsens."
Then the Party's mad hatter
Beck-o-Reilly did scatter
Their hype like goose poop on a lawn.
"Death panels for vets
And bimbo brunettes!
Real America
soon will be gone."
"Besides there's the war
Full of suffering and gore
Being fought against
Christmas and Jesus.
Unless you are armed
Your kids will be harmed
'cause those godless gay Dems
Want to fleece us."
"And those sods in orchards,
Factories and schools,
Wretched from flu,
Are just swine.
They're lazy as curs;
Their skin's not like yours.
Public health care would make
Them supine."
Then health reform failed
And while working folks wailed,
'Bout their kids who were
Feverish and sobby.
The prophets of profit,
Who prey off of pain,
Slipped quietly
out of the lobby.
And what kind of person is so ungrateful that they don't care about couples making $1 million dollars getting stuck paying more taxes?
So let me get this straight -- you feel a debt of gratitude to the wealthy because you expect them to take care of you? That's pretty weird, Gary -- and I think you're going to be disappointed.
Posted by: scottd on December 13, 2009 09:08 AM"there is a reason why actuarial risk is carefully designed by the insurance industry."
Sure there is. It is called profit!
"Aetna President Mark Bertolini laid out how the company planned to raise prices to improve the company's profit margin. he firm had "implemented a combination of underwriting enhancements, pricing actions and plan design changes, intended to ensure that each customer is priced to an appropriate margin." Aetna's decision comes from a system that encourages insurers to drive away sicker members -- a strategy not unique to one insurer. "They're running a business, and their obligation is a very singular one: to increase shareholder profits.""
So, the solution is clear. Continue to give insurance companies tax subsidized profit, and ensure that they are a large part of your savings portfolio. That way when they kick your ass off of the plan you bought to cover your risk if/when you are ill, you can use your profit and won't go bankrupt .... as quickly.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: jimg on December 13, 2009 09:54 AMFunny how public support for socialized medicine keeps heading towards the basement.
Funny how liberals keep flouting the public will and expect us to thank them for it.
They're like all angry, bitter marxists. So full of themselves that they truly do not care what the public wants.
Posted by: Attila on December 13, 2009 11:47 AMThat's why Canadians who are truly in need of healthcare come to the US. Because they know what it is like to have a guaranteed but inferior product, they now understand that you have to pay for real value.
Funny how public support for socialized medicine keeps heading towards the basement.
Funny how liberals keep flouting the public will and expect us to thank them for it.
They're like all angry, bitter marxists. So full of themselves that they truly do not care what the public wants.
Posted by: Attila on December 13, 2009 11:47 AMWhat? I'm not the one asking them to take care of everybody. You are. You want to soak 'em to take care of everyone else, and then you say "screw 'em" for making over $1 million.
Posted by: Gary on December 13, 2009 11:50 AM"But there is a reason for profit MikeBS. You view profit as wrong"
No, I don't view profit as wrong.
Will you tell us Jeff B. why profit in health care insurance is correct, and why tax payers should subsidize it?
"[Profit is] the successful metric that allows a business or individual to continue."
Really? So, the profit/loss metric is what allowed us to bail out the world's largest insurer, AIG? Or could it be there are other ways to successfully measure services other than profit?
"That's why Canadians who are truly in need of healthcare come to the US. Because they know what it is like to have a[n] ... inferior product,"
Hmmm. Are you inferring that people who leave their country to go to another country for health care only do so because in their country the health care product is inferior? Sounds like it.
I would be glad to read your specific citations of data comparing health care tourism of the US vis-a-vis Canada and other non-US countries.
"[Canadians] now understand that you have to pay for real value."
Wow. Seems you are really disparaging our northern neighbor. Can you cite any evidence of Canadian political figures running on repealing their 40+ year publicly-funded health care system?
Or does their now understanding continue Canadians to believe their nationally publicly-funded health care system needs modifications other than the national funding mechanism?
I'll be interested to read what you dig up.
"But the government continues whether it is successful or not,"
Wow! And here I thought we were living under a Federal Constitution and not the unsuccessful Articles of Confederation.
And, Jeff - please send a note about this to the Russian Federation, Poland, East Germany, Romania, Hungry, ... because apparently they are under the impression that the USSR and its satellites has not continued and somehow a quasi democratic change occurred as a result of failure.
You should inform them of your findings.
They cannot be honest and admit their programs constantly require an increase in taxes.
Every single program liberals come up with end up being endless sinkholes that require more and more from taxpayers. I think public schools are the best example.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 13, 2009 02:00 PM"You can't argue with fools. I shouldn't have bothered"
Correct, I cannot.
No worries, you obviously did not. :-D
A new report from economic analysts at the Health and Human Services Department said the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health-care tab would not shrink under the Democratic blueprint but would grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress did nothing.
And this gem:
More troubling was the report's assessment that the Democrats' plan to squeeze Medicare for $493 billion over 10 years in savings relies on specific policy changes that "may be unrealistic" and could lead to cuts in services.
Rationing services for grandma and grandpa. I guess the question is why do liberals so hate the elderly? Why do they want to ration the care - care they have already paid for with 40+ years of Medicare taxes?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 13, 2009 05:32 PMAnd here I thought we were living under a Federal Constitution
Great - can you tell me where in the Constitution this health care debacle is authorized, or where I can be forced to buy a product from a private supplier?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 13, 2009 05:40 PMIt's really telling, isn't it? Here we are in liberal Seattle where public school levies are never turned down at the polls. Yet the liberals that run the schools constantly whine that the schools are crumbling and class size will have to be increased. Don't think liberals will do the same thing with nationalized healthcare? Of course they will. There is not a bit historical evidence that would suggest otherwise.
It's really telling, isn't it? Here we are in liberal Seattle where public school levies are never turned down at the polls. Yet the liberals that run the schools constantly whine that the schools are crumbling and class size will have to be increased. Don't think liberals will do the same thing with nationalized healthcare? Of course they will. There is not a bit historical evidence that would suggest otherwise.
Rep. Schakowsky's husband, Robert Creamer, used to be the leader of Citizen Action/Illinois. He also founded its predecessor, Illinois Public Action, in which Ms. Schakowsky served as Program Director. He runs a political consulting firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, which lists ACORN and the SEIU among its clients and which made $541,000 working for disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.
Creamer resigned from Citizen Action/Illinois after the FBI began investigating him for bank fraud and tax evasion at Illinois Public Action. He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to five months in federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, plus eleven months of house arrest.
While in prison--or "forced sabbatical," he called it--Creamer wrote a lengthy political manual, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007).
The book was endorsed by leading Democrats and their allies, including SEIU boss Andy Stern--the most frequent visitor thus far to the Obama White House--and chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Creamer's tome "provides a blueprint for future victories."
In the book, Creamer draws lessons from decades of experience on the radical left, including the teachings of arch-radical Saul Alinsky, and several episodes from Rep. Schakowsky's political career. He also lays out a "Progressive Agenda for Structural Change," which includes a ten-point plan for foisting universal health care on the American people in 2009:
* "We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right."
* "We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis."
* "Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance."
* "We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community."
* "We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009."
* "We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus."
* "Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program."
* "We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community."
* "We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types."
* "To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined."
Creamer adds: "To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion--fear, revulsion, anger, disgust."
Democrats have followed Creamer's plan to the letter. They have claimed our health care system is in crisis despite polls showing the overwhelming majority of Americans are happy with the care they receive. They have--with the help of President Obama--circulated false horror stories about Americans dying for lack of health care and health insurance.
They have targeted the health insurance industry, with Rep. Schakowsky herself promising to "put the private insurance industry out of business," though it is a top employer in Illinois.
Democrats have cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association, among others. They have brought in the President himself to tell wavering "Blue Dog" Democrats that their re-election chances depend on passing health care reform. They have bused in SEIU members to town hall meetings, and used rabbis and pastors to back health care reform from the pulpit.
Posted by: KDS on December 13, 2009 07:33 PMDid you intentionally "avoid the facts" by not providing a citation for your off-the-wall supposition?
Or are you just being funny? Hmmm???
"26. The White House & Democrat leadership are ignoring the definition of insanity here because are doing taking the same approach as on every other government program (i.e. expanding Medicare) and expecting different results. All government programs have succeeded in growing the deficit."
Posted by: KDS on December 14, 2009 11:29 AMPerhaps you should go back and re-read what you have referenced, or re-word the question you have posed.
In you comment at 45 "if cutting billions will improve the efficiency of medicare, why wouldn't cutting billions improve education?", you clearly imply that the proposed legislation is utilizing cutting as the mechanism to improve efficiency. From the NY Times reference you provided:
"because the changes in Medicare would focus on eliminating waste and reducing medical expenses in parts of the country that now spend more than the national average while getting the same outcomes for patients."
But you need not rely upon the NY Times. You could go directly to the CMS Memo, and read it. I'd recommend you go to page 8, and read the section titled "Impact on Medicare and Medicaid".
After you read it, maybe you'll understand that CMS is critical of the projected savings that are expected to accrue as a result of proposed efficiency improvements, and that if adjustments are not made while spending is decreased, overall costs would go up.
In fact, the CMS memo correctly warns that cutting spending in the hopes of driving efficiency would lead to the opposite result and could drive 20% of Part A providers to be unprofitable in the 10 year projection period.
There is nothing in the "facts", liberal or otherwise, that purport that cuts would lead to efficiency.
Your rhetorical question is too cute by half.
They can't name a single one, and they don't care. They really could not care less about reforming the healthcare system. What they really care about is expanding the reach of government. It's the same reason they keep pounding their "global warming" "climate change" drum despite the increasing evidence that it is a liberal hoax.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 14, 2009 04:14 PM"What government programs exist that do not require increased funding from taxpayers? They can't name a single one,"
The Bonneville Power Administration has been self funded for longer than you've been alive.
The Bonneville Power Administration and its benefits are in your back yard, yet you are unaware.
Burns doughnut?
Why do you want to ration the care of grandma and grandpa, who have paid Medicare taxes for decades? Why do you hate old people?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 14, 2009 04:31 PMSome ask us to measure the success of public programs in terms of whether their costs are reduced year-over-year. By that metric, private health care is a much greater failure than Medicare since private costs have grown significantly faster than the public costs.
No one is proposing government-run health care. Having the government give tax credits to individuals to help them buy private health insurance is a lot different than giving everyone Medicare.
The evidence shows that a lack of health insurance leads to deaths -- about 20,000 per year. This human toll is just as important as the cost of the bill. The non-partisan CBO says the bill reduces the deficit and adds tens of millions of people to private insurance rolls.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 14, 2009 04:37 PMNice. Once again proving you're not here for any substantive debate, I guess. In reality, the bill has absolutely no Medicare rationing and it's explicitly banned by the bill. You're making things up.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 14, 2009 04:44 PMYou're right, MikeBoyScout, the BPA has managed it's debt. It was also created more than 70 years ago.
Modern leftists fight common sense projects like the BPA. Do you actually believe that the BPA would be possible now? No, leftists and their armada of lawyers would fight hydroelectric power, and the resulting irrigation that made the deserts bloom so our farmers could help to feed the world. We'd never have built Grand Coulee and Hoover dams.
We can't build an oil refinery or drill for our own oil now. We can't build a single nuclear power plant. The BPA was created when both Democrats and Republicans worked together to improve our lives. Any Eastern Washington farmer can tell you so.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 14, 2009 05:04 PMRead your response in front of a mirror and the thing with its lips flapping is the maroon.
And just WTF are you talking about here, maroon:
"The BPA was created when both Democrats and Republicans worked together to improve our lives."?
The 75th Congress which established the BPA was comprised of 88 Republican Congressmen and 17 Republican Senators.
Can't help opening your yap when you know nothing?
Burns doughnut?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 14, 2009 05:22 PM
What kind of "reform" is that? That's not reform, it's wholesale destruction. There are so many bad parts to this program, from every direction, there isn't enough time in a week to blog about all of them. From 40% of doctors that say they will quit to massive cost overruns that make Medicare now (which is officially broke BTW) look like a short bus.
Just because you are not aware of any GOP solutions doesn't mean that there haven't been any. The GOP has been trying to reform health care for longer than you have been interested but market based reforms that cost nothing from the federal treasury and give more freedom to health care purchasers isn't part of the all controlling leftist statists now in power in DC. And please don't forget that the problem health care faces today have been totally created by that all-smothering government that you so love. If the Feds can make health care cost effective, why don't they do it with Medicare? They have known that Medicare is heading to Brokeville for years but they do nothing. Why is that? So you think that this massive proposed program will be better than Medicare? It's MODELED after Medicare you boob!
How stupid are you? Wait, don't answer that. We already know.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 14, 2009 05:31 PM"The GOP has been trying to reform health care for longer than you have been interested ..."
That's funny
FRANK: I just want to ask Paul one question. ... When did you figure that out? Because apparently for the 12 years that the Republicans were in control - eight of which had a Republican president - that hadn't occurred to you. So I'm glad you now understand that. Can you tell me at what moment the revelation occurred?
RYAN: First of all, I introduced on this subject about six years ago.
FRANK: You had control of the Congress. Why didn't the Republican Congress fix it?
RYAN: I will have a moment of bipartisan agreement. We should have fixed this under our watch and I'm frustrated we didn't.
Who you going to believe?
G Jiggy?
Or your lying eyes?
Your maroonic point was: "They can't name a single one, and they don't care. They really could not care less about reforming the healthcare system. What they really care about is expanding the reach of government."
One was named. Many more could be named.
Now, having been proven absolutely wrong - AGAIN,
you spout some more:
"Modern leftists fight common sense projects like the BPA."
Just which party fought Medicare claiming it would lead to Socialism? Just which party did nothing to improve health care for the uninsured, or control the costs of Medicare when it had control? Which party has refused to accept common sense responsibility for the fiscal and financial crisis it created?
Which party??
My point remains, go get a King County Public Library card.
That's funny"
Well, this predates Obama a**hole:
_______________________________
April 07, 2004
The Senate and tort reform
The AP has a report headlined Senate GOP Tries to Curb Medical Lawsuits." Excerpt:
Senate Republicans are trying for a third time to persuade Democrats to curb medical malpractice lawsuits and help alleviate what proponents of limits call a health care crisis....
[snip]
They've said the lawsuits drive up obstetricians' and emergency room doctors' insurance costs....
The bill is supported by the American Medical Association and the American Insurers Association. [snip] frivolous lawsuits drive up insurance premiums for doctors. In several states, obstetricians have said higher insurance bills are forcing them to stop delivering babies.
[snip]
Last weekend, Tom Daschle conveniently glossed over the fact that he leads the effort to oppose tort reform when he was confronted on the issue by a constituent. Trial lawyers are Tom Daschle's biggest campaign donors. And Tom Daschle will lead the effort to kill this latest reform measure today."
____________________________________
OK MikeyBS, this is by no means the earliest try by my recollection but be that as it may, if the Demorats were really interested in finding a solution to the "health care crisis" in 2004 they could have mentioned something at the time don'tcha think? But they were obstructing reform so Mr. Daschle could protect trail lawyers instead of helping the American people get affordable operations and treatments.
So how funny is that Mikey?
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 14, 2009 08:02 PMNice. Once again proving you're not here for any substantive debate, I guess. In reality, the bill has absolutely no Medicare rationing and it's explicitly banned by the bill. You're making things up.
Are you a liar or ignorant, John? Because the Department of Health and Human Services says otherwise:
More troubling was the report's assessment that the Democrats' plan to squeeze Medicare for $493 billion over 10 years in savings relies on specific policy changes that "may be unrealistic" and could lead to cuts in services.
Oops. Looks like your wrong - once again! That's straight from the people who will be administrating and running the plan... They say there's a good chance that rationing will happen, and we already know that insurance payments will be capped annually, meaning - BINGO - rationing!
So why do you want to ration the health care of grandpa and grandma, John? Why do you hate old people who have paid into Medicare for 40 years?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 14, 2009 09:19 PM"in 2004 they could have mentioned something at the time don'tcha think? But they were obstructing reform"
You really shouldn't believe everything you read.
Which bill was obstructed?
Certainly Democrats have never been in favor of what is called Tort reform in regards to Health Care, but did a bill get out of the Republican controlled House? a Republican controlled Senate committee?
Which party??"
-
Uh, yours?
"Two new reports by liberal advocacy groups echo that claim. The first, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, contends that lower Medicare reimbursement rates to hospitals and other providers can pay for about half of the $900 billion or so government cost over a decade of expanded health benefits. Critics (again, including me) have said that Congress would put the Medicare cuts in today and might repeal some or all of them in the future. Nonsense, says the study. Congress has allowed many past reductions in Medicare reimbursements to take effect.
Even more upbeat is a joint report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP) and the Commonwealth Fund arguing that savings from the bills' cost-cutting provisions have been underestimated. One measure would push hospitals to reduce readmission rates; some "bundled payments" between doctors and hospitals would encourage coordinated care; taxes on gold-plated insurance plans would deter overspending. Health costs would be lower than expected: Medicare "savings" would total $576 billion over a decade (about $200 billion more than estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, which mostly counted lower reimbursement rates); the federal deficit would drop up to $459 billion over a decade; and health-care "savings" for typical families would total about $2,500 by 2019.
Who's right? Let's start with the numbers. Unfortunately, the word "savings" is used misleadingly. It doesn't mean (as is usual) actual reductions; it signifies smaller future increases. There's a big difference.
In 2009, national health spending will total an estimated $2.5 trillion, or 17.7 percent of gross domestic product. By 2019, it's projected to rise to $4.67 trillion under present policies, or 22.1 percent of GDP. With CAP's "savings," it rises a little less sharply to $4.49 trillion, or 21.3 percent of GDP, according to Harvard economist David Cutler, the study's co-author, who provided these figures. Similarly, family health insurance premiums rise from 19 percent of median family income in 2009 to 25 percent in 2019 under present policies and 23 percent with CAP's "savings." The point is simple: Even with highly optimistic assumptions, health spending remains out of control. It absorbs more of government, business and family budgets. Higher health spending would put pressure on future budget deficits, already projected to total about $9 trillion over the next decade. If new taxes and Medicare "savings" are real, they could be used exclusively to pay down deficits, not finance new spending.
But many may not be real. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the various health bills a "failing grade" and said they wouldn't "control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care." Quoted in Newsweek, Dr. Delos Cosgrove, head of the Cleveland Clinic, said much the same. Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, doubts the cost-saving provisions touted by CAP would save much money. He's also skeptical that Congress, facing complaints from hospitals and a squeeze on services, would allow all the Medicare reimbursement cuts to take effect. True, Congress has permitted some reimbursement reductions to occur, but it has repeatedly blocked the Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors, which most resembles the new proposals.
Health cost increases might spontaneously recede, but history suggests skepticism. The relentless advances reflect an open-ended insurance and delivery system that gives neither patients nor providers any reason to restrain spending. To attack costs first would be politically challenging. It would require admitting that all good things are not possible simultaneously and that the uninsured already receive much medical care. It would require genuine bipartisanship, not just a scramble for a few Republican votes. And it would require stronger measures to dismantle a fee-for-service delivery system that now rewards more, not better, care. That's a demanding and realistic approach; Obama's is wishful thinking."
Posted by: KDS on December 15, 2009 07:23 AMThe bill pays a greater share of the educational costs for those entering primary-care physician roles than today. While it isn't the biggest policy piece out there -- and it's hardly controversial so no one talks about it -- it is in the bill.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 15, 2009 10:30 AMSee post #69.
If the proposed Medicare savings won't work, what will? What is the constructive alternative you're offering?
If the argument is nihilist, that Congress can do nothing to fix Medicare costs, then our country is going to go bankrupt. Not from a moderate health care bill we're arguing about, but from Medicare eating every tax dollar. Congress has successfully cut Medicare spending in the past. I think they can do it again. And if they can't, then PAYGO rules would force future bills to find savings elsewhere.
I'm just wondering why this standard wasn't used for the Medicare Part D program passed by the GOP? That plan was funded entirely by deficit spending. This plan isn't. The non-partisan CBO has scored it to reduce the deficit.
Cost-control will be an on-going effort and this will not be the last bill to tackle it, but it is the first. The GOP oversaw the most dramatic explosion in health care inflation in the last 20 years without blinking an eye. Doing nothing is immeasurably worse than trying a lot of things. The alternative the GOP seems to be arguing for is to do absolutely nothing to fix Medicare spending.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 15, 2009 10:38 AM"I am going to have all the negotiations around a big table ... we will have the negotiations televised on CSPN. So that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents or for the drug companies."
"We're going to do it all on CPAN."
"Here's the difference, I am going to do it on CSPAN."
-
Now, if he had kept that promise, I imagine part of it would have gone like this:
Obama stands up:
"My next question is for Senator Nelson of Nebraska. Senator, I promise I won't twist your arm too much (laughter). Will you still vote against my plan if I promise to close Offut Air Force Base right there in your little state of Nebraska?"
Well, you believe things that are unbelievable. First, you believe that Congress will *actually* cut $500 billion from Medicare, and you further believe that if they do, that it will not reduce the level of care to seniors.
Not much difference between that and astrology.
Posted by: Gary on December 15, 2009 11:21 AMaccording to Mr. Samuelson;
" It would require admitting that all good things are not possible simultaneously and that the uninsured already receive much medical care. It would require genuine bipartisanship, not just a scramble for a few Republican votes. And it would require stronger measures to dismantle a fee-for-service delivery system that now rewards more, not better, care. That's a demanding and realistic approach; Obama's is wishful thinking."
In other words, the bill is fatally flawed. It may be able to pass, unfortunately to the dismay of a majority of Americans and it is very doubtful if that it will ultimately acheive cost savings over maintaining the status quo that you and your ilk are trumpeting. Something needs to be done though, just not on the POTUS's timetable.
He is advocating taking another run at it and do it systematically and correctly unlike with the current version. It won't be politically expedient though due to the election cycle.
Mr. Samuelson knows of what he speaks.
"The GOP oversaw the most dramatic explosion in health care inflation in the last 20 years without blinking an eye."
What did the Democrats attempt to do to stop it ?
If I recall, most of them did nothing and/or supported accompanying legislation. Conservative Republicans did not support that, but Bush who was not fiscally conservative by any stretch signed the "Prescription Drug Bill".
So you tell me, how do you NOT limit service if you cut the amount of money you spend on those services? Your contention is that cuts in spending won't result in reduced services; services reduced because of a lack of money (which is essentially rationing).
So John, can you explain how a cut in funding will not result in a loss of services?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 15, 2009 12:15 PMI don't believe it as an article of faith, but rather because the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has scored these savings with data. Somethings aren't that hard to analyze: Cutting back the extreme subsidy for private Medicare Advantage plans saves more than $200 billion while removing no mandated services."
-
And the other $300 billion?
Posted by: Gary on December 15, 2009 01:42 PMCBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 2 percent during the next two decades—much less than the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades.Posted by: John Jensen on December 15, 2009 01:48 PM
That's your delusion. We continue to agree to disagree, but the fact is that the Democrats did nothing proactive for savings before 2009, nor did they try to find cost savings with the Prescription Drug Bill at that time - which was fiscally irresponsible. The main reason the Dems are trying NOW is because the political winds were favorable for Government run health care and that's something I will not support. Purely opportunistic, maybe OK for a smaller EU nation, but wrong for America.
Posted by: KDS on December 15, 2009 02:12 PMWay too far to read in this forum.
KDS, That's your delusion.
No, it's the non-partisan CBO's statement of finding. Medicare Part D was completely deficit spending, but this bill reduces the deficit. Even if the scoring is wrong, it is significantly better than simply spending into the deficit like the GOP did with Part D.
but the fact is that the Democrats did nothing proactive for savings before 2009
That's not true. Many bipartisan efforts to reduce Medicare spending have passed over the last three decades.
I find your complain sort of ridiculous. Democrats are doing something proactive on savings right now and you're pretending they're not. What is going to make you happy, KDS? It seems like you're waiting for the GOP to act like an adult party who will actually govern. You'll be waiting a very long time.
nor did they try to find cost savings with the Prescription Drug Bill at that time - which was fiscally irresponsible.
That was a GOP bill, proposed by a GOP President, written by GOP committees, passed by GOP leadership in a GOP-controlled Congress and signed by a GOP President. It is not the Democratic party's responsibility to make your crappy bills fiscally sustainable -- it's your party's responsibility.
Stop blaming Democrats for your own party's failures. Democrats aren't passing a deficit-ridden health reform bill and blaming the GOP for it; they're making the bill reduce the deficit.
The main reason the Dems are trying NOW is because the political winds were favorable for Government run health care and that's something I will not support.
There is no government-run health care in this bill. In fact, as of today there isn't even an expansion of Medicare or a government-run insurance company (public option). The government is not "running" anything. It is helping tens of millions of people buy private insurance.
As for the political winds being favorable for health reform, of course they are. After the GOP did nothing to control medical cost inflation and the millions who lost health insurance under Bush, Americans are eager for health insurance reform.
You argue repeatedly that the cost savings simply aren't there in the Democratic bill. The criticism you've cited, which I responded to in the post deleted by Ron, is pretty weak. The GOP has proposed nothing similar to ending fee-for-service, they have merely derided any Medicare savings as some sort of evil scheme to murder old people (see Dan). I think this post on cost saving is much better.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 15, 2009 02:39 PMDemocrats are proposing simply reducing the amount of increase in Medicare spending, too. If you think "leftists" were so wrong, why are you making the exact same arguments now?
Posted by: John Jensen on December 15, 2009 02:45 PMSo you're on record as denouncing your fellow leftists for attacking Newt Gingrich for wanting to kill grandma when he and the GOP tried to address some basic Medicare reforms back in the 90s? Just bending the curve down, like now? You on record that way, John?
The fact is that rationing is what will happen; the HHS even states so (note: the HHS are the actuaries and people who DO the health care; the CBO hasn't a clue about how it will be delivered, just how to juggle the spreadsheets). You keep lying when you insist it's not, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's not an elk!
This bill has rationing, plain and clear. You lie - along with your marxist leaders - to try to keep the dwindling few who still support this bastardization of bills. Support is down below 40% John, that should tell you something.
We know that - per patient - Medicare has more overhead than private insurance, so we'll go ahead and put more people (down to the age of 55) on Medicare. Yeah, that'll save money!
And the HHS is on record as saying this bill WILL ration health care, regardless of what language is in it. Your pathetic article from the Atlantic even puts "ration care" in quotes, because it cannot claim the bill WON'T do that. It will, expressly, by simply mandating less money be spent. So you either cut operating costs, or you cut staff, both of which reduce the care provided to the consumer.
So why do you want to ration the health care of grandma and grandpa?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 15, 2009 03:22 PMHow bad must a plan be for this kind of thug tactic?
And in the other states?
And are the Medicare Advantage cuts *not* happening in three Florida counties? If not, why not? And does this mean that cuts have to fall more heavily everywhere else?
I accept Robert Samuelson's analysis of this piece of trash legislation. I find this more objective than the article sent by JJ from Atlantic had an underlying agenda - to put lipstick on this pig because the are rooting for this bill to pass and for single payer coverage.
As stated before, Health care reform is necessary, but not under the terms that have been cobbled together in back rooms. This process sucks to high heaven. Yes, it should have been done by now and shame on the GOP, but no bill is clearly better than any attempts I have seen so far.
If this one fails which most of us hope it will, I'd like to see HC Reform tried again after the 2010 elections. Yes, I have an agenda - I want a bipartisan bill, nothing less. There will be a better climate for that after next November.
Posted by: KDS on December 15, 2009 05:43 PMYou just simply have to understand who these people are. They have been socialists their whole lives. The absolutely live to tell you what kind of lightbulbs to use, what food you should eat, and what form of transportation you should use. They are the kind of people the left has attracted throughout history. Once you realize that they are nothing more than a bunch of controlling socialist nannys it's not that mysterious that they've concocted the "climate change" myth and push nationalized healthcare.
The constitution is irrelevant to these people and they will have succeeded in poisoning the well. I can only conclude Liberal Progressivism is a mental disorder and the inmates are running the asylum until we the people extract them from power.
Posted by: KDS on December 15, 2009 07:56 PMWhether this ordeal passes or not, those senators who vote for it and are up for re-election have dug their own graves. They can say its all about history in these circumstances - which only shows the depth of their narcissism. So was the Nazi takeover in Germany.
Posted by: KDS on December 15, 2009 08:35 PMObama on the campaign trail:
"We'll tell the pharmaceutical companies 'thanks, but no, thanks' for the overpriced drugs -- drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada,"
-
Yesterday he shot down the drug importation amendment.
I wonder when the liberals will finally get tired of getting screwed by this guy.
The sustainable growth rate that Gingrich introduced doesn't work. It's bad policy, and everyone agrees that it's bad policy. I am not going to talk about my "fellow leftists" -- I'll argue for myself and not others.
Your attempts to vilify the opposition do not really address why you're lying about Medicare right now. You're using the same arguments you claim progressives used in the '90s. If they were wrong then, why are you right now? You're not.
The fact is that rationing is what will happen
That's wrong. The bill explicitly bans it.
the HHS even states so
That is not true.
note: the HHS are the actuaries and people who DO the health care; the CBO hasn't a clue about how it will be delivered, just how to juggle the spreadsheets
That is a gross simplification of the CBO, and you're wrong.
This bill has rationing, plain and clear.
That is not true. The bill explicitly bans rationing.
You lie - along with your marxist leaders - to try to keep the dwindling few who still support this bastardization of bills.
Grow up, Dan.
Support is down below 40% John, that should tell you something.
That the American people are being misled by insurance companies and angry Republicans. It could have the support of 10% for all I care -- I know the bill and I know it's a good plan. The only poll that matters was the one in November 2008 and the upcoming one in November 2010. If we have to lose people because we did the right thing, so be it.
We know that - per patient - Medicare has more overhead than private insurance
That is completely false. In fact, Medicare overhead is substantially smaller.
so we'll go ahead and put more people (down to the age of 55) on Medicare. Yeah, that'll save money!
The policy was never in the bill and was dropped from negotiations. Go read the newspaper.
And the HHS is on record as saying this bill WILL ration health care
That is false. The bill explicitly bans rationing. By law. The hallowed HHS is going to violate the law?
Your pathetic article from the Atlantic
Great substantive response, Dan.
It will, expressly, by simply mandating less money be spent.
That is not what rationing is.
So you either cut operating costs, or you cut staff, both of which reduce the care provided to the consumer.
Or you don't provide ten MRIs when only one is needed. Or hospitals find ways to do more with slightly less, considering they are already the highest paid in the entire world by far.
So why do you want to ration the health care of grandma and grandpa?
Grow up, Dan.
KDS, Whether this ordeal passes or not, those senators who vote for it and are up for re-election have dug their own graves. They can say its all about history in these circumstances - which only shows the depth of their narcissism. So was the Nazi takeover in Germany.
I think providing health care coverage to 30 million Americans is different from Hitler's rise in Germany. But you know, evil Demoncrats and all of that.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 16, 2009 09:20 AMYou do?
Republicans should propose another ten amendments and constitutional reviews, and demand a debate on them as detailed in that previous link.
Where is McCain? He demanded that we fight for him, and fight for this country. How about fighting for us RIGHT NOW???
Posted by: Palouse on December 16, 2009 11:30 AMI think McCain is doing a good job in opposing Obama's healthcare proposals but I do not trust him at all.
What I do like is that today, finally, Republicans are standing up to the Democrats. Democrats are whining and crying. What a surprise.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 16, 2009 11:53 AMI submitted an online letter to several Republicans about fighting against this. I suggest others do so as well. I didn't bother to send a letter to our Senators, I know that's a waste of bandwidth.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Posted by: Palouse on December 16, 2009 11:57 AMHe should be noisier about the health care thing.
Posted by: Gary on December 16, 2009 12:03 PMObama has been fear mongering since the moment he took office.
He's also showed America what the far left is really like.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 16, 2009 12:19 PMPelosi came out today and talked about how next year they are going to focus on deficit reduction and job creation. Great. After you've spent more in one year than in any other year in the history of this country, now they get the fiscal responsibility bug. Unreal.
Posted by: Palouse on December 16, 2009 12:33 PM
I eagerly await Nancy Pelosi's condemnation of *real* violence by hear side just like she condemned the non-violence of the Tea Part protesters.
Posted by: Gary on December 16, 2009 01:21 PMBut clearly the recession was even deeper than we knew last January. Another jobs bill, with plenty of small business tax cuts, seems like a good idea to me. The best thing to do for the deficit is to improve the economy. I do look forward toward a big push early next year toward fixing the long-term deficit. (The sharp short-term deficit is simply unavoidable in such a deep recession and a series of unfunded Bush policies.)
Life is a lot more complicated than "CUT TAXES, ECONOMY FIXED!!!" In fact, tax cuts during recessions don't really amount to much when there isn't much will to invest or loan. And there isn't.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 16, 2009 01:23 PM"between 600,000 and 1,600,000" Like a laser beam.
Posted by: Gary on December 16, 2009 01:41 PMIt would have been impossible for any President to avoid deep deficits over the last few years. The best thing to do is to not pass expensive, unfunded bills during good economic times so that the bottom doesn't drop out when a recession hits.
More worrying is the long-term deficit picture. Medicare spending is the number one concern there, but there are a lot of other things we need to do.
Let's be frank. You're talking about the deficit, and Obama is going to push for action on that front during his state of the union (according to press leaks). Both parties should work together to develop a medium-term deficit reduction package over the next couple of months. I think with some political will, we can fix some serious financial problems in this country.
I won't like some things, because some programs I support will simply have to be cut. You won't like some things, because taxes simply have to go up. But you don't make up a $500bn+ shortfall by removing $2bn in pork.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 16, 2009 01:55 PMAnd Charles Manson is going to talk about not murdering people.
How many (it's thousands) earmarks are in this latest Defense bill that Obama also said he was going to take action against after the *last* bill that had thousand of earmarks in it?
Please. We don't believe him.
No leadership.
Other jobs that we "saved" were pollsters for Hillary Clinton and sock puppeteers!
Posted by: Palouse on December 16, 2009 02:18 PMThey'll try to scare people.
If you understand the left it's easy to anticipate the games they will play. The game is up, leftists.
The polls are clearly indicating that this is not a leftist country.
Then read up. cbo.gov.
You could have pointed at ANY job and said "yup, saved that one".
One could, but that isn't what the CBO did.
Also, creating public sector jobs, which many of those stimulus jobs were, does nothing.
What field of economics did you get this bit from?
A person employed isn't a person on unemployment insurance. He or she is someone who can pay rent on time and buy groceries and Christmas gifts and otherwise contribute to the economy. They pay taxes and contribute to government revenues. On a human level, there aren't suffering through a loss of employment.
None of these facts depends on whether the person is a publicly employed teacher or a privately employed waitress. It's ridiculous to say that a teacher who kept her job "does nothing."
Posted by: John Jensen on December 16, 2009 02:42 PM
By that rationale, the government should just provide 100% employment! Who needs the private sector, right?
Public sector jobs created by the stimulus are, at best, temporary. They are not permanent jobs, therefore, they don't accomplish anything except some temporary relief and all we are left with is the debt. If the money was invested creating private sector jobs instead, that person could have a lasting career that doesn't rely on further government spending to remain.
Unemployment still went up past 10% with the stimulus, even though Obama said that without it, it would go to 8%. Those 600k to 1m jobs (whatever they are) would not have affected that number much at all. The money would have been better spent on investments and incentives for the private sector to create jobs. It may have taken longer, but it would have lasted longer.
Posted by: Palouse on December 16, 2009 03:00 PMThis bill is *so* good, they have to break rules to pass it, and threaten to close military bases.
This bill is so good that Michael Moore wants Connecticutians to "recall" (can't even legally do that) Lieberman.
This bill is so good (where is it?) that the unions are about ready to bail on it.
This bill is so good that House Dems are now openly bitching about the President's complete lack of leadership on it, while they take all of the arrows.
It's *that* good.
Posted by: Gary on December 16, 2009 03:20 PM"No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I'll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.
Okay, so now Democrats want to recall individual legislators for not voting a certain way. And not only that, but the stupid Democrat Congresswoman admits to not even knowing if a recall is even possible.
And they call themselves "Democrats".
And people want to put their entire lives into the hands of these tyrants.
Posted by: Gary on December 16, 2009 03:30 PMBy that rationale, the government should just provide 100% employment! Who needs the private sector, right?
Come on, no one is arguing that. Are you arguing that there should be no public sector? Probably not.
Public sector jobs created by the stimulus are, at best, temporary. They are not permanent jobs, therefore, they don't accomplish anything except some temporary relief and all we are left with is the debt.
Do you have data to back this up?
The biggest group that kept their jobs is teachers. Those are not temporary jobs.
And for the record, the word stimulus implies temporary. The government creates some jobs while the private sector recovers. That's the entire point. We do not need to create careers -- we simply need to help improve unemployment for now and the private sector will eventually recover.
If the money was invested creating private sector jobs instead, that person could have a lasting career that doesn't rely on further government spending to remain.
What's your proof of this claim?
Are you arguing that the GOVERNMENT invest in "creating private sector jobs"? The fact that the private sector isn't investing is what a recession is.
If you are, then you should know that many stimulus jobs -- such as building roads and bridges -- are handled through private contractors.
Unemployment still went up past 10% with the stimulus, even though Obama said that without it, it would go to 8%. Those 600k to 1m jobs (whatever they are) would not have affected that number much at all.
Not a two percent difference, but yes of course it is a measurable difference. I think it's something like 0.4%. That's 600k-1.6m less people on unemployment and who are contributing to the wider economy.
The money would have been better spent on investments and incentives for the private sector to create jobs. It may have taken longer, but it would have lasted longer.
I think the government can only do so much to get a company to hire people for career-type positions. The best thing it can do is create a stable economy, and the best way to do that is to reduce unemployment.
If you have some concrete solutions, I'd be interesting in what you think. The stimulus was more than half tax cuts, so I hope you have something beside that.
Gary, Turns out when Sanders withdrew his amendment, ending the reading by the Clerk, that was a violation of Senate rules.
Are you really whining about meaningless delay tactics not working? No rules were violated.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 16, 2009 03:42 PMAre you really whining about meaningless delay tactics not working? No rules were violated."
-
Yes, they were. Didn't you want Sanders' amendment to pass, John?
Well gosh, I sure could be wrong
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 16, 2009 05:14 PMThis is unreal.
Posted by: Gary on December 16, 2009 06:18 PM"Reading: Under Rule XV, paragraph 1, and Senate precedents, an amendment shall be read by the Clerk before it is up for consideration or before the same shall be debated unless a request to waive the reading is granted; in practice that includes an ordinary amendment or an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the reading of which may not be dispensed with except by unanimous consent, and if the request is denied the amendment must be read and further interruptions are not in order; interruptions of the reading of an amendment that has been proposed are not in order, even for the purpose of proposing a substitute amendment to a committee amendment which is being read. When an amendment is offered the regular order is its reading, and unanimous consent is required to call off the reading." (Riddick's Senate Procedure, P.43-44)
That isn't from a right wing blog, John. Did you want the Sander amendment to pass?
Posted by: Gary on December 16, 2009 06:24 PMI've shown you multiple times the FACT that - on a per-patient basis - Medicare spends a LOT more than private insurance. You are a serial liar!
Rationing is banned, except the bill will cause it to happen according to the HHS! Say what you will, the people in charge of delivering say rationing will happen, bill language or not. Service will be restricted because funds are reduced; if that's not rationing, then you have your own twisted version of language...
Face it John, you're a liar, you're a shill, you have not credibility because you simply ignore reality.
Those are the facts, John...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 16, 2009 06:27 PMI often wonder how the creeps that run Democrat politics sleep at night.
Then I remember that the Democrat party and the left in general attract mean, controlling people that get their life's enjoyment out of controlling how others live.
They hate business. They are teachers, government bureaucrats, attorneys, or "non profit" workers.
None of them have ever grown up to the point where they respect the construction workers that build their homes, the people that make their vehicles, the plumbers that crawl under their houses and fix their leaks, or the people that grow the food they eat. They look down their noses at them the same way they look down at Sarah Palin, a woman who has actually gotten some dirt under her fingernails.
Big city liberals are the most spoiled, unhappy crybabies I've ever seen.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 16, 2009 08:05 PMYou claimed Medicare had more overhead and you're wrong. Keep your arguments straight.
Medicare spends more per-patient on medicine than the average private plan is because it has the sickest, oldest Americans on its books. It spends less than a private insurance company would: Medicare Advantage plans cost taxpayers more than Medicare Part A/B do.
the bill will cause it to happen according to the HHS
You are making things up. Not once did the word "ration" appear in the CMS report.
Face it John, you're a liar, you're a shill, you have not credibility because you simply ignore reality.
Grow up, Dan.
Service will be restricted because funds are reduced; if that's not rationing, then you have your own twisted version of language...
Say that Medicare will pay less for a surgery. If a surgeon refuses to take that fee, another surgeon will do it.
But say the entire world falls apart and all surgeons refuse to take the payment, that is NOT rationing -- that is a fundamental underpayment that'll have to be fixed. Rationing is making tough choices due to limited resources. No one being able to get a surgery would not be rationing, it would be a lack of access that would have to be remedied. The same exact thing could happen today under the GOP's Sustainable Growth Rate, which is why that policy is dropped every year. The SGR is stupid GOP policy, but it isn't rationing.
You're simply wrong, you're misusing the English language, and misleading readers about the CMS' report. Rationing is explicitly banned in the bill. I am not going to argue this any further besides to point out that you're wrong.
PS You have confused the HHS and CMS multiple times. If you're trying to sound like someone who knows what they're talking about, work on your terminology.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 16, 2009 08:27 PMIf all you can do about health care is whine about the parliamentarian and trying to stall, delay, stall, delay, and stall reform, it's no wonder Americans realized your party is incapable of governing in 2006 and 2008.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 16, 2009 08:34 PMDo you have data to back this up? If so, it makes this stimulus even worse. The federal government shouldn't be paying teachers a dime. Education is the responsibility of the states.
The government creates some jobs while the private sector recovers.
So you admit the stimulus is a 'make work' program. At least you're honest. Rob the taxpayers and pay off your government employee union membership.
the best way to do that is to reduce unemployment.
I agree, just not by using taxpayer money to create MORE government jobs. That just creates debt, not wealth.
If you have some concrete solutions, I'd be interesting in what you think.
There tons of things the government can do to spur investment in this country - reduce the deficit, lower corporate taxes, provide tax incentives for foreign companies to open businesses here, increase trade opportunities with other nations, ease restrictions on cross state health care plans, provide more small business loans, provide tax incentives for venture capital funding, reduce capital gains taxes. That's just a start, and any of it is better than what we got.
The stimulus was more than half tax cuts
So you're stating that of the $787 billion in that bill, that over half of that number was tax cuts? Show me.
Posted by: Palouse on December 16, 2009 08:47 PMMedicare spends more on administration per patient than private insurance. That's the fact. You're a liar. I've shown this to you many times and you ignore it.
And you refuse to be honest - cuts in service because of lack of funds is rationing, whatever you want to call it. You lie, you mislead.
You need to grow up, you need to learn what honesty and integrity are. You're a shill and liar, John.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 16, 2009 09:42 PMJohn, so? The Senate parliamentarian broke the rules. The Senate parliamentarian has no power to do what he did. It does not matter whether Sanders withdrew his amendment or not. The Senate parliamentarian is not the King of the Senate.
Did you want the Sanders amendment to pass? Why won't you answer that very, very, very simple question?
If you want to blame someone for delay, why not blame Sanders?
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 05:11 AMMoney quote by Dr. William O'Neill, executive dean for clinical affairs at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine:
this is kind of great evidence to show there has actually been some dramatic improvements in the health of Americans over the last 20 years.
Yes, Dr. O'Neill it is. Health care delivery in the US is getting better all the time, people are living longer. And of course he's right to worry, as well:
We are going to have many people 80 to 90 years old," O'Neill said. "So how is the U.S. going to handle this huge increase?
Why, we'll handle it by cutting back on the money we spend on that ever-increasing population! Not just in terms of dollars per person, but in absolute dollars (in other words a real, overall cut).
After all, this plan is about rationing (yes, John, that is the right term - your filthy lies and those of Harry Reid notwithstanding) the healthcare of grandma and grandpa, who paid into the system for 40 years. Dramatic cuts for them!
People living longer, but we have terrible healthcare that must be nationalized. More retirees drawing on Medicare so we'll slash the absolute dollars being spent. It's madness, and anyone who supports it is either a fool or wants to literally kill our senior citizens. There's no other rational position.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 17, 2009 05:17 AMJohn, even you have to be against this.
No problem, it's only $100 billion... We'll just tax the middle class even more and of course cut $50 billion more out of Medicare for our senior citizens. Problem solved!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 17, 2009 06:56 AMIs there any more doubt that this entire Green movement is nothing more than the last refuge of worldwide Communism? Hell, the Left here is *not* happy to learn that this whole thing is a fraud, because they don't actually give a damn about the climate, or "saving the earth". The only care about destroying capitalism.
And they can never, ever be honest about their intentions, because more people still hate commies.
And now today we learn that Hadley chose only those stations in Siberia that showed warming over the last decade. The stations that showed cooling, which was most of them, were tossed.
Massive fraud.
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 07:14 AMhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588842779569168.html
Shanghai Dan, Hugo Chavez did us a huge favor yesterday. In Copenhagen, he just railed against capitalism to thunderous applause.
Ever see the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian"? There's a classic scene in there that mimics the leftists (the group talking in this clip) and capitalism (the dreaded "Romans").
Other than power, clean water, cars, movies, phones, airplanes, modern farming techniques, oil refineries, pharmaceuticals, MRIs, the Internet, computers, and on and on, what has capitalism ever done for anyone?
Hey lookie here, rationing in the health care bill:
Don't worry, liar John will be by to tell us it cannot be, because the bill explicitly bans rationing. He's focused on a single word rather than the actual impact and effect.
It's like saying it is illegal to drive. Of course, you can legally own a car and operate it on public rights-of-way, but you can't drive!
Rationing is plain-and-clear in the bill, but leftist shills like John will put in their ear plugs, put on their eyeshades and ignore the reality. If only they knew where to put the cork!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 17, 2009 07:55 AMYou can look up the data. We have the same Google.
The stimulus didn't directly pay for teachers. It gave aid to the states that prevented them from cutting teachers.
So you admit the stimulus is a 'make work' program. At least you're honest. Rob the taxpayers and pay off your government employee union membership.
No, it isn't a make work program. Most of the jobs created for infrastructure, for example, are private jobs. Teachers are public jobs because we have public schools. Besides these teachers whose jobs are saved, most of the spending results in private jobs.
The government creates many private jobs at Boeing for defense spending -- that isn't "make work." Keeping a public employee paid, however, also means that they can pay rent and buy food and go to the movies -- all contributions to the private sector.
There tons of things the government can do to spur investment in this country
Great!
reduce the deficit
Well that is not true at all during a recession.
lower corporate taxes, provide tax incentives for foreign companies to open businesses here
When you have a recession, corporations are less likely to invest and spend even with reduced tax burdens. The money they save through tax cuts would be saved, not invested.
If this weren't the case, the monetary policy of the Fed would have been able to spur lending. Even with a near 0% interest rate, businesses chose not to invest early this year. The economy was too fickle, and more direct action was necessary.
increase trade opportunities with other nations
Are you implying that consumer spending would increase because of trade opportunities? The consumers without jobs?
Trade agreements are fine. But they aren't stimulus.
ease restrictions on cross state health care plans
That would have no effect on the economy at all.
provide more small business loans, provide tax incentives for venture capital funding, reduce capital gains taxes.
All of these were in the stimulus in some form. Capital gains for small businesses went away entirely.
So you're stating that of the $787 billion in that bill, that over half of that number was tax cuts? Show me.
I misspoke about that, but there was still $288 billion in tax cuts. That isn't half, but 37% of the stimulus was tax cuts.
Gary, Did you want the Sanders amendment to pass? Why won't you answer that very, very, very simple question?
Because I don't respond to your leading questions. If you have a point to make, then make it. I am not playing a game of 20 Questions with you.
Hey lookie here, rationing in the health care bill:
Are you wondering if a Republican Senator is a non-partisan health care expert?
There is no rationing in the health care bill.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 09:42 AMFirst he claims that Medicare already rations. No one buys that. It ain't true. Medicare is more popular than any private insurance company.
Then he claims that somehow Medicare reviews -- or any comparative effectiveness reviews -- would affect a 33-year old woman. That is simply a blatant lie. She cannot go on Medicare, she is too young. Comparative reviews cannot ever force insurance companies to deny treatment.
The bill still has ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES PRIVATELY RUN. They can choose to cover whatever additional treatments beyond the minimal requirements they like.
The rationing that occurs in America every day is based on income. 20-40,000 people die annually from lack of health care coverage. The bill has no rationing at all -- it bans rationing by law. And it gets rid of the current rationing we have today.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 09:50 AMI can answer. I didn't want it to pass.
See? Easy.
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 09:53 AMLove the "Tommy" reference...
Posted by: Bill on December 17, 2009 09:56 AMIs there abortion funding in it?
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 09:57 AM
I don't respond to leading questions. If you have an argument to make, make it. I am not playing a game of 20 Questions with you.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 10:11 AMthat is a bullshit figure.
Posted by: Ron K on December 17, 2009 10:14 AMWhy type 100 characters saying you won't answer when "yes" or "no" is so much easier?
Is there rationing in the bill?
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 10:22 AMI don't respond to leading questions. If you have an argument to make, make it. I am not playing a game of 20 Questions with you.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 10:27 AMYes. Abortion funding in the bill
Yes. Rationing in the bill
Yes. Health Insurance exchange in the bill
Just in case anybody was wondering.
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 11:22 AMBest thing Republicans could do now is insist that the entire Senate Bill be read aloud. I hope they have the courage to insist upon it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 11:52 AMI don't like his politics, but at least there isn't any bullshit. The Democrats are all bullshit, all the time.
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 12:19 PMNope. The Senate bill bands federal funds from being used to fund abortions.
Yes. Rationing in the bill
That's not true. The bill explicitly bans rationing -- by law.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 01:48 PMA Democrat Senator disagrees with you:
"Mr. President, I'd note that the Senate health care bill, if enacted would indeed chart new ground--it covers abortion."
Quote us the specific part of the bill that prohibits public funding of abortions, John Jensen.
You seem to know every part of this bill that changes every day and is not even available to members of the Senate that are being asked to vote on it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 02:20 PMWhat a big joke these people are.
And now you got Franken refusing a 30 second extension to Joe Lieberman. These Democrats who run *everything* are so nasty.
He's wrong.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 02:44 PMOh. Okay. Whatever you say, Mr. Jensen.
Nancy Pelosi disagree with you too:
The Senate bill "doesn't have a public option, doesn't expand Medicare for the (age) 55 to 64 group, and has abortion language that is completely different from the House -- thank God."
How is it different from the House, John?
Posted by: Gary on December 17, 2009 02:50 PMThe truth is leftists know the incomprehensible healthcare bill opens the door to single payer government run healthcare. Why else would they be frantically attempting to ram it through before anyone can possibly comprehend what is actually in the bill? Many of them have lived for this since they were pot smoking anti-war socialists in the 1960's. Now they are teachers, college professors, journalists, and attorneys. Their political ideology has not matured since they were 20 years old.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 03:11 PMYou can tell me how the House bill is different if you have a point to make. This is not a game of 20 Questions.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 03:29 PMIf you are so knowledgeable about these bills this should be easy for you.
Posted by: bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 04:34 PMJensen hasn't read any of the multiple bills that are on the floor of Congress. He doesn't understand them. They are reconstituted in backdoor rooms every day. Nobody knows what is in these bills that Democrats want to ram through without letting the people of the United States see them. Their lawyers are going to make sure the leftists get exactly what they want.
This is not government by the people. This is government by socialist lawyers. That much should be clear by now.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 05:08 PMNobody can possibly know what is in these bills, much less comprehend the language liberal attorneys write. These bill are designed to confuse decent citizens who have a right to understand their intent.
The socialist Democrats insult us every day with their legal language. They are so desperate to pass a single payer socialist healthcare system that they will stop at nothing.
Do they ever have the faintest idea that their spoiled lifestyles were brought to them by something called capitalism?
I would imagine a couple of years living the way Native Americans did would help. Or living in a commune. Whatever happened to those, anyway?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 06:47 PMMedicare has a higher per-patient administrative cost, so we're going to save money by increasing the number of patients in the system. Boneheaded move... Supported by boneheads!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 17, 2009 07:06 PMGrow up, Dan.
Medicare has a higher per-patient administrative cost, so we're going to save money by increasing the number of patients in the system.
That's not true. You cite the partisan, biased conservative Heritage foundation which itself admits that the CMS overhead is less than private insurance. Then they cobble some other costs that have nothing to do with Medicare to make the program sound more expensive. Privately-run Medicare Advantage is actually less efficient than Medicare. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that Medicare spends less than 2% on administrative costs, compared to 5-40% in private insurance (CBO, "Designing a Premium Support System for Medicare").
This plan does not expand Medicare. The only insurance companies on the exchange will be privately-run in the Senate bill under consideration. What do Medicare efficiencies have to do with anything?
Just like our entire health care system, Medicare does have a lot of waste (but less than private insurance). That's why this bill reduces hundreds of billions in future Medicare waste. If you're concerned about Medicare costs, you've offered absolutely no way to address them and in fact attack the most promising proposal to do so as 'stealing from grandma.'
Medicare doesn't have higher overhead, it's not expanding Medicare, and it's the more comprehensive plan ever offered to make the program even more efficient.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 17, 2009 07:46 PMI don't want to hear spin. I want you to cite the specific part of the bill. You seem to know the bill so that cannot be difficult for you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 07:58 PMAren't socialists wonderful people? I wonder why socialists don't print up t-shirts that say , "Socialism, We Have Been Ruining Countries Since 1918".
Oh, but I am dreaming. Then they would have to be honest.
It's a little bit early to say "I told you so", however, the evidence is certainly mounting.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2009 08:41 PMBeware of the Liberal progressive con artists and snake oil salesman. This bill is a perfect example of liberal fascism.
Sorry, John - your enummerated arguments are assorted flim flam. Horseass.org, Blue Oregon or your own blog would have more appreciation here, because they aren't getting any respect from what I have seen and it is not from lack of intelligence - its from a capitalist perspective - from the evil capitalists.
Posted by: KDS on December 17, 2009 08:56 PM"Now that the Medicare expansion has been stripped from the Democrats' health care legislation, we would do well to focus on the Medicaid expansion. The legislation would expand eligibility for Medicaid to those whose income equals 133 percent or less of the poverty level. According to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, this would add roughly 15 million people to the program. In his state, the increase could be as high as 50 percent.
Where will the money for the expansion come from? Not from the federal government. If the feds were to foot the bill, this would explode the pretense that the legislation is "revenue neutral." To keep up that pretense, the bill would leave the states to pay for the expansion after the first three years. Gov. Barbour estimates the size of that bill at $25 billion. Call it the mother of all unfunded mandates.
The problem, of course, is that the states cannot afford to pay for the Medicaid expansion. Indeed, many states are already struggling with the cost of Medicaid as it is currently constituted. In Tennessee, for example, Democratic governor Phil Bredesen has capped the state's program, barring new entrants. Yet the Dems would require a massive expansion.
Most states face balanced budget laws. So unlike the feds, they cannot borrow from the Chinese or from anyone else. Their only options would be to raise taxes or cut services. As a practical matter, they would do both. A significant portion of the budget cuts would have to come from the education portion of the state's education budget, since that's where the majority of state money is spent. That's why Gov. Bredesen has described the options in the event of a Medicaid expansion as putting one's state "into bankruptcy" or its education system "in the tank."
The Medicaid expansion would create additional problems beyond cost. For one thing, when people exit from private policies to go on Medicaid, the price of premiums for these policies rises. As a result, many businesses, especially small ones, may well stop offering health insurance to their employees.
For another thing, a Medicaid expansion would exacerbate existing problems of access to Medicaid. Because more than one-third of doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients, states are having a tough time making sure that those who are currently eligible for Medicaid actually have access to treatment. Imagine the effect on accessibility in the event of a massive expansion of Medicaid.
Obamcare is already unpopular, and the public doesn't know the half of it. If this legislation passes, it will come to know. The drip-drip of the consequences of Obamacare will feel like torture to state governors and, quite possibly, to many of the politicians responsible for enacting it."
Posted by: KDS on December 17, 2009 09:13 PMEven Arnold is telling Congress that CA will have to come up with billions on its own if this turd passes and where is that gonna come from during a recession, or otherwise?
John, how are the states going to pay for your health care reform that the feds are shoving down our throats? Hey, I know... how about a bailout?
What number comes after "trillion"?
Sounds familiar. He never has new proposals. He just speaks and hopes other people will do the heavy lifting. Is this the "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," like he said would happen on the day He was elected?
What an ego.
Posted by: Gary on December 18, 2009 05:16 AMYou're a liar. You cannot refute the Heritage report because it's true, so you lie about it and dismiss it with generalities that are made up.
You're a liar and a shill, John. All here see through you. How about you just leave as you bring nothing but lies?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 05:27 AMWhat's 40,000 when we're going to fund the murder of 1,000,000 a year or more? I mean, why worry about 40,000? That's hardly worth worrying about, and I'm sure they were just drains on society, too expensive to concern ourselves with...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 08:12 AM
