HR-2: Repeal of "Obama Care"

[Elderberry]

Here's the CBO report on what repeal of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" would actually mean to the budget deficit; not to mention all of the people benefiting from the act. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc120 ... Repeal.pdf

And of course, now that it is not saying what they want it to say, the Republicans are trying their best to deamonize the CBO, when always in the past, it was like the word of 'God' to them.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/ ... -grassley/

and a summary for those that don't care enough to take the time to read the official report:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/06/cbo-score-repeal/

(Yes, think progress is left leaning, but that's why I posted the actual CBO report. It's simply the facts.)

And I just LOVE what the Republicans are calling their H.R.-2 "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" What ass hats.

JK

[Trishntek]

The CBO is limited to information, parameters, hypothetical scenarios and assumptions PROVIDED BY CONGRESS to draw their estimates. The fundamental information they base any analysis upon needs to be scrutinized along with their conclusions.

Common sense and history beg a couple of questions:

1. How can we insure 30,000,000 more people for less money?

2. Medicare ended up costing 10X the estimates back in '65. Why should we believe the estimates currently expressed concerning the health care plan?

The budget deficit requires a budget. Congress recently passed the omnibus bill to fund the gubmint through what,,,, February? because they never passed a budget in 2010! How can anyone estimate a budget deficit when there is NOT A BUDGET?

[ygmir]

yup,
whoever likes what the CBO says, sings its praises, and vice/versa.

both parties.

I've not yet seen any gov. estimate as to cost of a program/law, whatever, be correct. And, if they're trying to sell it to us, they'll call it low, if they want us to reject it, they'll call it high......

How, can anyone believe what the gov says things cost, or will cost?

[Elderberry]

The CBO is limited to information, parameters, hypothetical scenarios and assumptions PROVIDED BY CONGRESS to draw their estimates. The fundamental information they base any analysis upon needs to be scrutinized along with their conclusions.

The problem here is that it was the REPUBLICANS that have ALWAYS said the word of the CBO was GOD. However, now that it doesn't suit their agenda, their whole tactic is to now demonize the CBO--and it seems like it is working based on your post.

May I ask, did you read the CBO report?

JK

[Elderberry]

yup,
whoever likes what the CBO says, sings its praises, and vice/versa.

both parties.

I've not yet seen any gov. estimate as to cost of a program/law, whatever, be correct. And, if they're trying to sell it to us, they'll call it low, if they want us to reject it, they'll call it high......

How, can anyone believe what the gov says things cost, or will cost?

That hasn't always been the case.

If you can't trust the CBO, what then is even the point of having them around? Or is that your point.

The truth is that the CBO is as non-partisan and non-biased an organization as there can be. That has to be accepted as fact, otherwise government budgets would be a total exercise in futility.

The problem is that people would rather believe the partisan spin than the truth. Maybe the reason you've never seen an accurate government estimate is because you are believing the spin rather than the truth???

And I ask you, did you read the CBO report?

If not, how can you or Trishntkek provide a reply based on the facts available rather than your long held opinions based on spin and lies.

JK

[Elderberry]

Here's a list of words, all Republican talking points designed to resonate negatively with the voting public, and design to sway opinion negatively against health reform. Any of them sound familiar? Just remember them as you listen to your favorite right wing talking head.

Un-American
Jobs killings
Assault on freedom
Assault on liberty
Government overreach
Government intrusion
Death tax
Massive tax hike on American families and small businesses
Death panels
Blame America first
Harm small business
Class warfare
Wealth redistribution
Liberal elites
Government elites
Right to life
Legislating from the bench
Activist judges
Power grab
Taxes = slavery
Soft on crime
Traditional values
Extreme, dangerous, irresponsible, radical, socialist

And remember Factcheck.org listed "government takeover of healthcare" its biggest lie of 2010.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/ ... Vocabulary

Now tell me what has helped to formulate your opinion on Health Care Reform???

Now, find me something close to this list on the Democratic side, I'd love to read it.

JK

[Eric]

1. How can we insure 30,000,000 more people for less money?

That's actually really simple. American health-care & insurance is a For-Profit system. The more people the "risk" (ie: money) is spread amongst, the less the actual cost of of paying out for people to use their insurance. The companies are bringing in more than they're paying out.

In other words, as long as more people are paying into the system than actually using it at one time, it costs less to insure more people.

The reason for the mandated insurance in the new Health Care law is to create that pool. The old system (the one the current Congress wants to return to) also allowed your insurance to drop you when you got sick! After you had paid all that money, they could actually drop you so they could still make a profit.

The single-payer option (not requirement, as it was widely reported on the right) would have brought costs down even further. It would have given people a place to get insurance other than the big companies, it would have given the government clout to bring down the outrageous costs of some medicines (one of my generics is $368 a month without insurance!)

The current system is broken, and is draining American capital at a ridiculous rate. From a fiscal conservative side the Health Care Reform makes sense. Incredible sense. Unless, of course, you're getting Insurance Industry funds for your re-election and once elected you get government health care for life. Like Congress does.

If government Health Care is so bad, why have only (two?) members of the current Congress refused it? Why are the Republicans who are voting to take away health care from millions of Americans keeping theirs- for life?

[Elderberry]

Not to mention that the U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centr ... elease/en/

Americans like to THINK that we have the best health care in the world; but unfortunately it is only true if you have money...and I don't even mean that regular health insurance that most Americans have now...you either have a Cadillac plan or can self-pay if you expect to actually get the best America has to offer. Which is why you see all of the wealthy from around the world coming here.

At least with the Affordable Health Care Act now in place, almost all Americans will at least have access to a reasonable level of care.

JK

[mdmf007]

1. How can we insure 30,000,000 more people for less money?

That's actually really simple. American health-care & insurance is a For-Profit system. The more people the "risk" (ie: money) is spread amongst, the less the actual cost of of paying out for people to use their insurance. The companies are bringing in more than they're paying out.

In other words, as long as more people are paying into the system than actually using it at one time, it costs less to insure more people.

Sure through economy of scale the per person cost goes down, but that is still 30 million more peeps to insure.

[Eric]

1. How can we insure 30,000,000 more people for less money?

That's actually really simple. American health-care & insurance is a For-Profit system. The more people the "risk" (ie: money) is spread amongst, the less the actual cost of of paying out for people to use their insurance. The companies are bringing in more than they're paying out.

In other words, as long as more people are paying into the system than actually using it at one time, it costs less to insure more people.

Sure through economy of scale the per person cost goes down, but that is still 30 million more peeps to insure.

And there's 300+ hundred million people in the country. If everyone is required to carry insurance the economy of scale works, and works perfectly in this case.

Besides- the cost of not insuring people is driving up the cost of insurance. Hospitals, by law, can't turn someone away for lack of funds, so people without insurance only use them when they're sick enough to go to the emergency room. Who pays for that? You do. I do. Anyone who pays taxes does. It's already ridiculously expensive- getting those "30 million peeps" covered is going to bring down the costs of hospital visits, because they won't have to use them as their only option.

The thing that kills me is that the side screaming that They are the fiscally responsible side is the one fighting this. They are not fiscally responsible, they just play it on TV. If insurance companies had to compete with a Public Option, all of a sudden those ridiculous 39% rate hikes would be a thing of the past. They'd have to compete in a fair market.

A lot of our health care costs are due to near-monopoly Insurers and Hospital Systems artificially controlling costs & fees, all so their investors make a profit, not so we stay healthy. If you don't believe me, see how many of the Hospitals in your area (other than any public ones) are owned by one or maybe two companies.

[theCryptofishist]

oh crap, I can't say anything...

[littleflower]

If you can't trust the CBO, what then is even the point of having them around? .....

The truth is that the CBO is as non-partisan and non-biased an organization as there can be. That has to be accepted as fact, otherwise government budgets would be a total exercise in futility.

JK

::bangs head on wall::

[Elderberry]

If you can't trust the CBO, what then is even the point of having them around? .....

The truth is that the CBO is as non-partisan and non-biased an organization as there can be. That has to be accepted as fact, otherwise government budgets would be a total exercise in futility.

JK

::bangs head on wall::

Hate to say this, but you're moving closer to the wacko camp every day. If you are not willing to acknowledge the facts as presented in the report of a long respected agency of the government, you're paranoia is beyond reason.

Hope you enjoy that hopeless/helpless feeling you must have.

JK

[littleflower]

!!! hon, there are millions of variables and unknowns working here .... to assume that any one person or agency has the answers is absurd .... !!!!

i don't feel helpless. but people who just totally shill for the government fascinate me.

[Eric]

re: CBO

June, 2009

In following up on the Leader's statements about Republican efforts to try and make sure we accomplish health care reform, I think the news yesterday from the CBO is the turning point in the heath care debate so that we will be able to put some reason back into the discussion here and be able to produce for the middle class families in this country.

Congressional Record, 6/22/2009

I believe the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office are doing a very difficult but unpopular work. They are speaking the truth to power here in Washington and making the folks who would pass these enormous unfunded bills that impose this huge debt on generations hereafter somewhat unhappy. But I think they are doing an important service by telling us the facts.

9/24/09 (Fox News)

The director of CBO, as you just indicated, has underscored what they are doing. And it's astonishing

As far back as 2004:

The true cost estimate as far as Congress is concerned is that of the Congressional Budget Office. We’re required by law to abide by the cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

JK is right- they love the CBO when it works for their agenda. They hate them when it doesn't (like when they were told in '02 that the Bush tax cuts would lead to deficits: wonder how that turned out?)

[thisisthatwhichis]

I think Littleflower may be banging her head, because the Gov plan NEVER follows the CBO projections in the long run.

Also, a little to piss both left and right sides off.

For the Left: The Healthcare costs are so F**-ed up because of medicare/medicad.... They set the high ceiling on what can be charged early on.... Same thing happens with the regulated gas prices in Hawaii.

For the Right: Stupidly long copyrights for presciptions have made it hugely expensive for existing drugs and medical equipment/procedures. It's almost freeking impossible now to come up with new stuff without infringing on copyright laws.


So in my opinion, adding another gov mandated layer with the insurance companies makes me want to gag....

[ygmir]

yup,
whoever likes what the CBO says, sings its praises, and vice/versa.

both parties.

I've not yet seen any gov. estimate as to cost of a program/law, whatever, be correct. And, if they're trying to sell it to us, they'll call it low, if they want us to reject it, they'll call it high......

How, can anyone believe what the gov says things cost, or will cost?

JK in red


If you can't trust the CBO, what then is even the point of having them around? Or is that your point.


yes, that is my point, I don't think they are accurate enough to trust.


The truth is that the CBO is as non-partisan and non-biased an organization as there can be.

I disagree.


That has to be accepted as fact, otherwise government budgets would be a total exercise in futility.


exactly. they are part of the problem.
and, when have you seen gov. stay within it's budget? Heck or even pass one, let alone on time?
I think the budget is a joke to them. It means nothing. They'll just do what they do to "emergency fund" gov. until later.


The problem is that people would rather believe the partisan spin than the truth.

I see a lot of people, when faced by a fact with which they disagree, call it "partisan spin", as a way to discredit. Just because it doesn't agree with your take, does not make it "spin".


Maybe the reason you've never seen an accurate government estimate is because you are believing the spin rather than the truth???


maybe, it's because there are no accurate government estimates.
They always miss it. And, as stated, high or low, depending on how they are trying to influence us. There is always an excuse....."unforseen circumstances", whatever.
I just don't ever remember them hitting a budget right, or cost estimate.


And I ask you, did you read the CBO report?

I skimmed it.
I see they make projections, based on projections, based on best guess/estimates.......
yeah, thanks for that.



If not, how can you or Trishntkek provide a reply based on the facts available rather than your long held opinions based on spin and lies.

well, I can only speak for me, but:
I reply, with what I believe is true. It is my opinion.
And, it is based on whatever info, I deem fit.
Just as you do.
I see much of what you post, right out of the "leftist handbook", as such. I'm not putting you down for that, but, submit you use as much left slanted information, as others use right.

And, to me, we're still looking at the same wooden nickel, on edge.



JK

much of my issue, is systemic, not so specific.
If, I don't trust an agency, or gov, or branch thereof, then I care not what they say, if it's couched in innuendo, projections, estimates, etc.
And, they can't provide "hard facts" most of the time.

Hell, I bet, they really don't know what happens to money, they just throw it out there, and let their cronies tell them what a good job and how wisely they spent it.

I mean this for both sides, because, I mean it for gov. in general.
Especially fed. gov.

I don't like em, I don't trust 'em.

[littleflower]

me too, titwi, me too....

i have so many questions about how all of this works ... and unlike JK and eric, i do not trust the government to make it work. i mean, really, a tax on people who don't pay for insurance? it'll go into the same old pot, and be used for whatever. people will stop buying insurance, because the tax is cheaper ..... and then where will we be? more calls to tax the rich to pay for all of the people who have no other insurance.

and it's so easy to say tax the rich, but does anyone know how to do it? does anyone out there really think that raising tax on earnings above $250,000 will affect people who are actually "wealthy" ... ie, more than $25M net worth??????

that stupid little lie annoys me more than anything.

[Elderberry]

me too, titwi, me too....

i have so many questions about how all of this works ... and unlike JK and eric, i do not trust the government to make it work. i mean, really, a tax on people who don't pay for insurance? it'll go into the same old pot, and be used for whatever. people will stop buying insurance, because the tax is cheaper ..... and then where will we be? more calls to tax the rich to pay for all of the people who have no other insurance.

and it's so easy to say tax the rich, but does anyone know how to do it? does anyone out there really think that raising tax on earnings above $250,000 will affect people who are actually "wealthy" ... ie, more than $25M net worth??????

that stupid little lie annoys me more than anything.

The problem with what you ate saying now is that none of it is true. Stop guessing, speculating and believing the spin and start doing your homework. Read the damn bill.

JK

[thisisthatwhichis]

Oh yea, and I forgot a BIG ONE.... Tort reform.... Niether side is willing to take that up because....... Drum Roll... They are all (mostly) a bunch of freakin lawyers.......



Bajeez, just look in the yellow pages..... "Call 1-800 to take a bunch of money from someone else, cause by god it's there to take".... Hehehehe ignore the huge percentage we rake off of it, hehehehe.....

[ygmir]

Oh yea, and I forgot a BIG ONE.... Tort reform.... Niether side is willing to take that up because....... Drum Roll... They are all (mostly) a bunch of freakin lawyers.......



Bajeez, just look in the yellow pages..... "Call 1-800 to take a bunch of money from someone else, cause by god it's there to take".... Hehehehe ignore the huge percentage we rake off of it, hehehehe.....

+20

[Eric]

i mean, really, a tax on people who don't pay for insurance?

Under the current system your taxes are paying for people who don't have insurance, every time they go to the emergency room. Really. Wouldn't you rather they pay for it themselves, or are you enjoying paying it?

and unlike JK and eric, i do not trust the government to make it work

As for not trusting Government- sorry, the reason you can dislike them so much is because of the work that's been done to make your life safer and better has made it so you don't know what its like without them.

Spend a week somewhere like central Mexico or Rio or India and don't do it in a tourist area. You'll see what life without effective government is. Sitting in your apt or house built to code with clean running water, electricity on demand, roads that are (mostly) usable, no bribes required to get a license or a car or food is not the place to convince me that government is bad.

Electing people who think that government is bad is a surefire way to get bad government. There used to be lots of really effective, really well regarded Republicans who couldn't get a shot now days. Even Barry Goldwater would be too much of a social liberal for todays Republicans.

You won't, however, get me to disagree with tort reform. 115 lawyers in the current session.

[littleflower]

me too, titwi, me too....

i have so many questions about how all of this works ... and unlike JK and eric, i do not trust the government to make it work. i mean, really, a tax on people who don't pay for insurance? it'll go into the same old pot, and be used for whatever. people will stop buying insurance, because the tax is cheaper ..... and then where will we be? more calls to tax the rich to pay for all of the people who have no other insurance.

and it's so easy to say tax the rich, but does anyone know how to do it? does anyone out there really think that raising tax on earnings above $250,000 will affect people who are actually "wealthy" ... ie, more than $25M net worth??????

that stupid little lie annoys me more than anything.

The problem with what you ate saying now is that none of it is true. Stop guessing, speculating and believing the spin and start doing your homework. Read the damn bill.

JK

i don't believe spin, my dear .... YOU do ...!!! geez .... do you really think you - or anyone else - can read a bill ....even a smaller one .... and KNOW how it will actually work in real life?

and if you know i am so wrong, why don't you point me to the piece of the bill that proves it? i do not have time to read these things, and, like most people, i fall asleep reading them anyhow.

i have a great idea. when you read these bills, perhaps you would be willing to copy out some sections that you know will help you to convince people...? that would be far more interesting than simply reciting the usual spin from the left.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Even though I'm thowing shit out, I do agree there is a huge problem with healthcare in this country, and I feel really bad for those that can't afford it (including me).

I have one of those Healthcare plans through my company that meets all of the requirements of the law just passed.

For about $350/mo family of 2+ I have the $2,000/10,000 deductible EVERY year. This means that after I pay $2,000 out of pocket, the insurance pays their 60-80-95% on cost until I get to $10,000 that year.
Then it starts over next year........... Yea for me!!!!!!!!!!

I just don't see the Insurance (and lawyer) industry treating this any more that a great thing for their stock prices.............. Like I said, another layer.

[littleflower]

i mean, really, a tax on people who don't pay for insurance?

Under the current system your taxes are paying for people who don't have insurance, every time they go to the emergency room. Really. Wouldn't you rather they pay for it themselves, or are you enjoying paying it?

and unlike JK and eric, i do not trust the government to make it work

As for not trusting Government- sorry, the reason you can dislike them so much is because of the work that's been done to make your life safer and better has made it so you don't know what its like without them.

Spend a week somewhere like central Mexico or Rio or India and don't do it in a tourist area. You'll see what life without effective government is. Sitting in your apt or house built to code with clean running water, electricity on demand, roads that are (mostly) usable, no bribes required to get a license or a car or food is not the place to convince me that government is bad.

Electing people who think that government is bad is a surefire way to get bad government. There used to be lots of really effective, really well regarded Republicans who couldn't get a shot now days. Even Barry Goldwater would be too much of a social liberal for todays Republicans.

You won't, however, get me to disagree with tort reform. 115 lawyers in the current session.

hey!!!! wtf ....... i NEVER said i was against government! i just don't trust them. and i see nothing in your argument that even addresses what i wrote. i KNOW that taxpayers are paying for emergency room visits. i KNOW what it's like in mexico.

i would love to see other reforms, particularly cost cutting measures. government waste is insane. i was just dealing with a day care center that gets money from the USDA, who told the day care that they should be providing the kids with about 1/2 gallon of milk/day. they serve 1/2 that, and still have leftover milk at the end of the week .... and told the USDA so. the USDA said "you should have it because that's what we give you the money for .... if you don't use the milk, throw it away."

i have a friend who has a mother who is in an old people's home, in a wheelchair, with alzheimer's, taking drugs to keep her alive, courtesy US taxpayers. the doctors get their cut too, of course.

taxes are insane right now. yes, fed income taxes are lower, but add in social security taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas tax, tobacco tax, thumb tax, traffic violations, parking violations, &c &c &c .... at some point it gets out of control. the result is that the rich stay rich, and almost no one else even has the opportunity to become financially comfortable, because it gets taxed instead of saved. and i'm sorry, JK, but you probably won't find anything about this in any government bill ..... try switching to history or something.

[Eric]

For about $350/mo family of 2+ I have the $2,000/10,000 deductible EVERY year. This means that after I pay $2,000 out of pocket, the insurance pays their 60-80-95% on cost until I get to $10,000 that year.
Then it starts over next year........... Yea for me!!!!!!!!!!

"When provisions of the federal health reform law take effect in 2014, out-of-pocket deductibles will be limited to $4,000 for families and $2,000 for individuals. The reform law also provides subsidies to help low-income individuals purchase health coverage."

One of the compromises was delaying this until 2014. For the next 3 years you may thank those in power who didn't think it needed to happen sooner.


Here's a really good overview from the NY Times from last year on the changes.

Here's some of the changes coming up in 2011 from Fox for balance.

Littleflower- it sounded more general anti-government to me, but the written word can deceive. I'll touch directly on one of your comments:

and it's so easy to say tax the rich, but does anyone know how to do it? does anyone out there really think that raising tax on earnings above $250,000 will affect people who are actually "wealthy" ... ie, more than $25M net worth??????

Yes. Tell the Republicans you don't want the taxes on the wealthiest Americans extended again. They're the ones who did it- the Dems wanted it to lapse. Remember last month? The Republicans blocked all legislation until the richest got to keep a tax break. At a cost of over $100 billion to the deficit.

We're also the only major democracy that puts everyone over $250,000 in one catagory. We could set new tax levels at $1 million, $10 million, $100 million- wherever. Of course, it will be blocked as a "job killer", because we all know that when the top median tax bracket was 90% (roughly 1947-1970) America was in the garbage heap. Unlike the current 37.5%, when we're on top of the world.

[ygmir]

are there enough "high income=1M/yr." earners, to make a difference, at a high level?

I always understood, that, the real numbers, and money, lay in the "middle class".

Just wonderin, if taxed at 80%, would enough money come from "them" to make a difference?

[thisisthatwhichis]

I know a lot of the law won't go into effect until later years ( I have read a good portion of it by the way), but ya know, I distrust the Insurance companies more than I distrust the Gov, in a way.

And guess what!, now that we know the gov will bail out disfunctional banks, well the Insurance Giants(soon to be) don't have anything to worry about.......

For some reason, I just see this ugly slippery slope with the current legislation. Don't take me wrong, the intent is there, just not the way it is written and will end up for all of us...............

And no, I do not support any idea of the Repubs to pull the whole thing back to zero gain over some of the bill.

[ygmir]

yeah, that's a tough one for me.

I so dislike poorly written stuff, passed because "at least it's something"
To me, they know exactly what they are passing, with all its flaws, and also know once encated, it's highly unlikely to be changed, or improved.

so, they get to foist upon us, some crappy, full of holes (to make some lobbyist rich) bill and there's where it stays.

But, also realizing, something has to be done.

IF, they had OUR best interests at heart, I'd bet they could write something good and workable. and simple.

but, the graft, corruption, greed, and megalomania that exists there prevents that.

[Trishntek]

Let's start with the assumption $500,000,000,000 would be save in Medicare costs including $50B in fraud and abuse of the system. Those are assumptions based upon an educated guess at best, and a random throwing of the dart at a chart at worst.

Let's follow up with states being mandated to take on a greater portion of Medicaid. So increased costs passed onto the states is going to save who money? It will not be us!

The enforcement authority given to the IRS requires the hiring of 15,000 more employees. But I guess their pay won't count as a cost of healthcare because they are not working under the Health Secretary.

So Jk,,,, you've read all 2300 pages of the HC law and comprehend every iota? Congratulations!