or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 27

post #1041 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, it is quite damning, even hypocritical, that someone who was a minor child (likely 2-3 years old in the mid 1960's) in a family that used the Canadian Universal Health Care System is now a vocal opponent of it.

Don't worry about Berger. Liberals don't really understand honesty.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1042 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank777 View Post

don't worry about berger. Liberals don't really understand honesty.

ppd
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1043 of 2360
Rush Limbaugh says he will leave the country if health care reform is passed. Honestly?

Real audio:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_491536.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #1044 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Rush Limbaugh says he will leave the country if health care reform is passed. Honestly?

Real audio:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_491536.html

I doubt we should take him any more seriously than the Hollywood celebrities who said they'd do the same if Bush was elected.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1045 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I doubt we should take him any more seriously than the Hollywood celebrities who said they'd do the same if Bush was elected.

Limbaugh can always pull an Alex Baldwin.
post #1046 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Limbaugh can always pull an Alex Baldwin.

He's going to agree to be a bad host for the Oscar's?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1047 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Rush Limbaugh says he will leave the country if health care reform is passed. Honestly?

Real audio:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_491536.html

Do you believe him? Do you think he was serious?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1048 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Do you believe him? Do you think he was serious?

If there's a God, he will keep his word.
post #1049 of 2360
Saw this on Drudge this morning:

Quote:
'END' OF THE 'END GAME' OR 'THE END'?

TODAY: Obama pushing on health care end game (AP)

Last year:

July 28: Healthcare endgame on Capitol Hill (Reuters)

August 21: Analysis: Health care endgame near but uncertain (AP)

October 14: Senate, administration begin healthcare endgame as Dem leaders express unity (Hill)

October 25: Senators say health care bill endgame is in sight (Politico)

October 27: End Game: So When Will Health Care Really Happen? (TPM)

October 30: Health reform inches closer to endgame (WaPo)

November 23: The Health Care Endgame (NPR)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1050 of 2360
I don't think this has been posted yet:

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- In a boost to President Barack Obama's flagship reform drive, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a Senate health care bill would cut the deficit by 118 billion dollars.

The release of the report thickened the intrigue in a tense period of vote hunting for Obama's Democratic allies in the House of Representatives, with the White House pushing for a crucial vote on the measure within a week.

The non-partisan CBO said in its updated assessment that the Senate bill would cost 875 billion dollars over 10 years and reduce projected budget deficits by 118 billion dollars.

In a bid to thwart Republican obstruction tactics, Obama wants the House to pass the Senate bill along with a package of "fixes" in a delicate political maneuver that represents the last hope for his key domestic priority.

Senate Democratic Majority leader Harry Reid said intense talks with the White House and House leaders over the scope of proposed legislative changes to the bill had yielded significant results.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #1051 of 2360
Yes, and the city of Toronto just found $100 Million dollars in "extra money" to balance the budget.

I believe previously in this thread somebody mentioned what the original estimates for U.S. Medicare were for this decade.
Their numbers were off by several zeros. I doubt this is much different.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1052 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Heritage.org

Quote:
For starters, the Senate bill omits the president’s proposal to permanently restore a 21 percent reduction in Medicare’s fees for physician services, now in effect as of March 1. The administration estimates that overriding this cut will cost $371 billion through 2020. Last summer, the House planned to include a permanent repeal of the cut in its health reform bill. But when the president imposed a 10-year budget of $900 billion on the reform legislation, Democratic leaders decided to pull the physician fee spending out of it and pass it separately..................


........The Senate bill also includes the so-called “Cadillac tax,” a new fee imposed on insurers and employers offering high-cost plans. As passed, this provision would generate substantial revenue in the second decade of implementation because the threshold for what constitutes “high cost” would rise much more slowly than medical inflation. Eventually, virtually the entire country would be in plans deemed “high cost.”

Think of this as the ATM of medical plans.

Quote:
It will now raise almost nothing over the next 10 years, but the administration still claims credit for the sizeable revenue that would come in a second decade. That revenue would materialize, however, only if future officeholders were more willing than their counterparts today to impose large new taxes on a broad cross-section of the American middle class.

The plan balances if people who are not him agree to raise taxes when he won't do so. Otherwise more unbalancing.

Here is the reality........

Quote:
CBO expects the cost of the new entitlement spending aimed at coverage expansion in the Senate bill – the premium subsidies in the exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid — to reach about $200 billion by 2019 and then grow at a rate of 8 percent every year thereafter. In other words, this new health entitlement spending is expected to escalate just as rapidly as Medicare and Medicaid have in the past. CBO does not expect the “delivery system reforms” in the Senate bill, which are mainly small initiatives and pilot programs, to amount to much of anything in terms of cost control.

A new entitlement that grows at 8% a year forever.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1053 of 2360
Medicare is disastrously over budget. Now Social Security is broke.

Sounds like a great time for an entirely new U.S. government entitlement program to me.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1054 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Medicare is disastrously over budget. Now Social Security is broke.

Sounds like a great time for an entirely new U.S. government entitlement program to me.

Maybe you didn't hear, but the Congressional Budget Office did their sums and declared today that Barack 'Chairman Hitler-Pot-Evil-Cunt' Obama's Obamacare bill will reduce the deficit by 138 billion over ten years.

http://www.cbo.gov/

Now you may find reasons why their figures are wrong and Barack Obama wants to abolish private property and whatever.

It's a good bill. They should pass it. It will be popular. America needs it.
post #1055 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It's a good bill. They should pass it. It will be popular. America needs it.

50,000 comedians out of work in this country and you're telling jokes. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1056 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Medicare is disastrously over budget. Now Social Security is broke.

Sounds like a great time for an entirely new U.S. government entitlement program to me.

Yes, but this time will be different. Promise. No, really.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1057 of 2360
I find it interesting (and not a little disheartening) that one of the biggest (liberal) opponents of this bill (Dennis Kucinich) seems to have changed his "principled" position based on the premise that this thing going down in flames would basically doom the remainder of Obama's presidency. Now I never thought of that as a possible consequence, but he brings up a good point and, frankly, gives me another reason to hope for its catastrophic demise.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1058 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Maybe you didn't hear, but the Congressional Budget Office did their sums and declared today that Barack 'Chairman Hitler-Pot-Evil-Cunt' Obama's Obamacare bill will reduce the deficit by 138 billion over ten years.

http://www.cbo.gov/

Now you may find reasons why their figures are wrong and Barack Obama wants to abolish private property and whatever.

It's a good bill. They should pass it. It will be popular. America needs it.

Yes but several well reasoned responses to that, including one I have posted here note the several related issues that don't give the number validity. One of them has to do with front-loading tax collection and back-loading the benefits so they meet the 10 year projection with costs rising but still contained since the benefit didn't start for the first six or so years of the cost range.

EDIT: Found a good lucid source to explain this point.

Qando.net

Quote:
The just released CBO scoring for the Senate bill and reconciliation package comes in at $940 billion over ten years.

A reminder: the benefits (i.e. spending) don’t begin until 2014. The taxation (revenue collection) begins immediately.

A true number? The CBO says the cost over the first 4 years would be $17 billion. The last 6 would equal $923 billion. So isn’t this a better representation of true cost?

$923/6*10 = $1,538 trillion or over 1.5 trillion dollars if the spending is factored evenly over the 10 years like it will be the following 10 years.

And that doesn’t include the $200 billion yearly “doc fix” which was deliberately taken out of the bill to make it seem like less spending. Add that to their claimed “net” and see what it gets you. It’s certainly not $794 over 10 years or any deficit reduction.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1059 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes but several well reasoned responses to that, including one I have posted here note the several related issues that don't give the number validity. One of them has to do with front-loading tax collection and back-loading the benefits so they meet the 10 year projection with costs rising but still contained since the benefit didn't start for the first six or so years of the cost range.

EDIT: Found a good lucid source to explain this point.

Qando.net

Yes, that's all true. It's the same reason Bush's tax cuts expired at the end of 10 years so they could pass with reconciliation. But there's a difference: If you want to buy something in the future, but you can't afford it yet, you put off the purchase for a few years until you can afford it. That's basically what's happening here, and it's not a gimmick. It's just a way of paying for what you purchase - delay the spending while you save the money.

The other difference, and this addresses one of the points made in the article you linked, is that the cost savings built into the bill accumulate over time, so that it's projected to reduce the deficit by 100 billion in the first 10 years, but over 1 trillion in the next 10.

This is in stark contrast to whatever legislation Republicans ever come up with. Prescription drugs? Just let it add to the deficit.
post #1060 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Yes, that's all true. It's the same reason Bush's tax cuts expired at the end of 10 years so they could pass with reconciliation. But there's a difference: If you want to buy something in the future, but you can't afford it yet, you put off the purchase for a few years until you can afford it. That's basically what's happening here, and it's not a gimmick. It's just a way of paying for what you purchase - delay the spending while you save the money.

The other difference, and this addresses one of the points made in the article you linked, is that the cost savings built into the bill accumulate over time, so that it's projected to reduce the deficit by 100 billion in the first 10 years, but over 1 trillion in the next 10.

Brussell, we've both been on this board, if I'm not mistaken, prior to the Great Blackout.

Given the government's track record (whether Democrat or Republican) in economic forecasting, do you really believe this entitlement program will work out as you just described?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1061 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Brussell, we've both been on this board, if I'm not mistaken, prior to the Great Blackout.

Given the government's track record (whether Democrat or Republican) in economic forecasting, do you really believe this entitlement program will work out as you just described?

Hi Frank. The great blackout - that was in 2000, if I recall?

You're right, economic projections are about as good as horoscopes. But the CBO tends to be conservative in their numbers. They are not some partisan group cooking the books for one side. If the CBO projects that this bill will control costs, it must have some serious and economically feasible cost controls in it. They may not work, or they may work better than expected. If they don't work as well as expected, I'm sure the always fiscally-responsible Republicans will help the Democrats pass additional cost-control legislation (haha).
post #1062 of 2360
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1063 of 2360
It's looking like this disaster is actually going to happen. Obama and Pelosi have pulled out all the stops to ram this piece of crap through. What a sad day it will be.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1064 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Video of Fox Bush and Fox Obama- http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/18/baier-bush-obama/

Where is the heart-eyed smiley when you need it? Really wish someone would make a good 10-minute video of the "Fair and Balanced" quality of Fox; it would be quit entertaining.

It's interesting that one of Fox's primary focuses was on procedures in the House and Senate that both sides use with amazing regularity but had been misrepresented by the GOP, Fox, and the media in general... not on the actual impact of the bill at hand.

Jon Stewart did a pretty good job imitating the Glorious Beck yesterday:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...vism-is-cancer
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ve-libertarian

The snippets of the real Beck are frightening. That the guy is as popular as he is is even more so.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #1065 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Where is the heart-eyed smiley when you need it? Really wish someone would make a good 10-minute video of the "Fair and Balanced" quality of Fox; it would be quit entertaining.

It's interesting that one of Fox's primary focuses was on procedures in the House and Senate that both sides use with amazing regularity but had been misrepresented by the GOP, Fox, and the media in general... not on the actual impact of the bill at hand.

Jon Stewart did a pretty good job imitating the Glorious Beck yesterday:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...vism-is-cancer
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ve-libertarian

The snippets of the real Beck are frightening. That the guy is as popular as he is is even more so.

Unfortunately I can't watch those links in the UK of the Daily Show

I did find this on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0 It gets pretty nutty!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1066 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Unfortunately I can't watch those links in the UK of the Daily Show

I did find this on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0

Do the links on HP work?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_505329.html

---

PS Thanks for the link. Ugh!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #1067 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Do the links on HP work?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_505329.html

---

PS Thanks for the link. Ugh!

No, the same message. I'll have to move back to Russia
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1068 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No, the same message. I'll have to move back to Russia

Too bad. Stewart went on for 15 minutes; it was hilarious.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #1069 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Too bad. Stewart went on for 15 minutes; it was hilarious.

Thanks for the links too! I found a site that streams the Daily Show for one week after the original airing. It's currently up to the 17th - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/t...rt/4od#3041036
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1070 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's looking like this disaster is actually going to happen. Obama and Pelosi have pulled out all the stops to ram this piece of crap through. What a sad day it will be.

I'm curious what you think is so disastrous about this. This is the same plan that Mitt Romney and Scott Brown supported in Massachusetts. It's the same plan proposed by Bob Dole last year. It's the same plan that Republicans supported as a counter-proposal to Clinton's in 1993. There are three cornerstones of the plan: 1) consumer protection regulations on the insurance industry, 2) a requirement that everyone get insurance, just like we have with auto insurance, so people can't freeload when they do need care, and 3) aid for low-income people to buy insurance. Throw in serious cost-control measures, like the medicare commission (which has the most problems of any entitlement program and is the primary cause of projected spending increases), insurance exchanges, and taxes on high-end plans, and anyone who claims to be serious about deficits but opposes this has got some explaining to do. Not that anyone thinks Republicans really are serious about deficits.
post #1071 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

This is the same plan that Mitt Romney and Scott Brown supported in Massachusetts. It's the same plan proposed by Bob Dole last year. It's the same plan that Republicans supported as a counter-proposal to Clinton's in 1993.

Are you under the impression I support or supported those plans?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm curious what you think is so disastrous about this.

Primarily because it is built on a foundation of false premises, faulty economic understanding and wishful thinking all of which is going to cause this to turn out badly in reality.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1072 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Are you under the impression I support or supported those plans?

No, but the fact that you reject both Democratic and moderate Republican reforms tells me something about where you're coming from.

Quote:
Primarily because it is built on a foundation of false premises, faulty economic understanding and wishful thinking all of which is going to cause this to turn out badly in reality.

So, you have vague negative feelings about it rather than anything specific?
post #1073 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

No, but the fact that you reject both Democratic and moderate Republican reforms tells me something about where you're coming from.

Goody for you!


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

So, you have vague negative feelings about it rather than anything specific?

No.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1074 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No.

At this point, it's usually traditional for the other party in the exchange, which BRussell is keeping very open and civil, to actually state their argument.
post #1075 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm curious what you think is so disastrous about this. This is the same plan that Mitt Romney and Scott Brown supported in Massachusetts.

Romney's plan in MT did succeed in making insurance coverage practically universal.

But did it end up stopping the spiralling cost of health care?
Is it credible that this program could ever be as fiscally responsible as projected?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1076 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Romney's plan in MT did succeed in making insurance coverage practically universal.

But did it end up stopping the spiralling cost of health care?
Is it credible that this program could ever be as fiscally responsible as projected?

I don't know much about what happened in MA, but I don't think there's any reason for cynicism about the federal plan. This bill is projected to reduce the deficit more than any other bill since Clinton's deficit-reduction plan in 1990s, and the CBO vastly underestimated the deficit reduction that would occur then.

There are a number of cost-control provisions in this plan:

1. There's a tax on high-end plans, discouraging excess consumption of health care. McCain supported that during his presidential campaign, and Obama (wrongly) criticized him for it.

2. There's a Medicare commission whose goal is to reduce costs, and whose recommendations will take effect unless the president or congress explicitly rejects them. This is the most important entitlement reform in probably 25 years, and its "law by default" mechanism means its recommendations are more likely to be enacted.

3. There's an exchange that insurers will need to get into if they want people to buy their plans, but to get into them they have to meet certain requirements including keeping costs low. That will increase competition for the cheapest and most efficient plans.

4. There are inducements to switch away from the fee-for-service plan by which doctors have an incentive to do additional procedures because they get paid for each one, and towards alternative payment systems (e.g., salaries).

5. There's additional funding for comparative effectiveness research, so doctors know what works best and will be less likely to perform unnecessary procedures.

And I think there are others. These are not fantasies or bogus projections - they're real. If some don't work as well as hoped, others probably will work better.
post #1077 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

These are not fantasies or bogus projections - they're real. If some don't work as well as hoped, others probably will work better.

At least I should applaud your faith.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1078 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

At this point, it's usually traditional for the other party in the exchange, which BRussell is keeping very open and civil, to actually state their argument.

I've understood it. CBO's estimates on entitlements on ranges of this nature haven't just been off, they've been off by an order of magnitude.

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early 70s and other factors, the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billionoff by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaids disproportionate share hospital (DSH) paymentswhich states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patientswould cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the programs traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicares home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Childrens Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.


It is at this point in the discussion where BRussell and others who have been very nice and very open should realize that anyone can make pretty numbers add up to sell a lie today.

So that is why we end up with points like this.

The $1.3 trillion number, however, is not in CBO's report (PDF). Robert VerBruggen noted on National Review Online's "The Corner" that the 20-year estimate "is nowhere to be found in the CBO report itself. It seems that the Democrats took the CBO's estimate that deficit reduction could fall 'in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP,' matched it up to some estimates of GDP in 20202029, and attributed their back-of-the-envelope math to the CBO itself. I e-mailed a source within the CBO to ask if they had arrived at the $1.2 trillion figure themselves. The source e-mailed back one word: 'No.'"

The past teaches us and we need to lean from it here. The reality is that this is to be covered by demanding the healthy and the wealthy contribute more. This presumes, like most things that they will simply yield on the point and will take no action to stop the transfer which we have seen is absolutely not true. Likewise the depth of their need and costs associated with it have show to be massively off.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1079 of 2360
I've decided to just accept that I am and have been wrong on this thing all along for a whole host of obvious reasons, not the least of which are that things will just be great because we intend for them to be great and if things somehow, unlikely as that is, don't work out nearly as well as hoped or even have the opposite effects that are expected, I'll just sit around scratching my head wondering why, but eventually arrive at the conclusion that it's simply because they didn't go far enough and begin beating the drum for even more government intervention and control of healthcare.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1080 of 2360
WOOHOO- "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) committed on Friday to holding a separate vote on a public option in the coming months."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_506272.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality