Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='mykevermin']What I'd like to see you do, if you support those measures, is look at the discussion a few posts above in this thread, about buying insurance across state lines. If you support it, you certainly understand the logic of buying across state lines.

So, since you support it and understand it, you can help us rationalize the logic that explains how it will be a good thing that reduces costs and expands coverage for everyone - and won't, as I claim, be a race to the bottom that excludes more people than the current system does.

thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

It will be a race to the bottom. Lots of healthy young people will buy really cheap, low coverage insurance and they will sign up, instead of going uninsured, because of the affordability. The people in the middle (health wise) will also have the chance to buy a range of coverage plans, similar to auto insurance. And lastly the generally older, sicker people will also have the ability to shop around for the best coverage per dollar but also get subsidized in the form of #5 of the small bill, yearly federal relief. This will be paid for by the savings introduced in the other parts of the plan.

Is that acceptable?
 
Not really. This 'small bill' uses sleight of hand that isn't revenue neutral by a long shot. The increases in gov't spending are per-year listings, while savings (like in #1) are ten-year estimates - so they need to be divided by 10 relative to the spending increases. It's not even close to revenue neutral.

And I can't take seriously any proposal that words something as "convert some federal funds." From where? For what? This is essentially asking the fed to repackage funds - from somewhere, anywhere - and reclassify them as state-level block grants. It's fascinating that folks who are so anti-federalist demand that the state-level funding come from the fed. Moreover, there's no way the proposed credits for the high-risk pool will cover the differential in their premiums - this is even more pointed since you admit the high-risk pool will be a race to the bottom. Lastly, if you have the healthy-people-opt-for-minimum-coverage approach from the race to the bottom based on interstate commerce, you'll have billions in uncovered, unpaid medical costs due to catastrophic coverage.

In short, where the small bill fails is in lacking substantial detail that helps bolster the rationale for longer, more detailed bills - this proposal is exactly the reason why it's not sensible to get bent out of shape over the length of proposed legislation. Where it succeeds, it does so by ignoring the fact that catastrophes happen to people who don't expect them to happen. And where it succeeds, it does so by reducing costs by parlaying high-risk pools into a government-subsidised program that won't pay for the coverage required and won't pay for itself by the spending reductions it proposes, thereby creating an unsustainable deficit-increasing welfare state problem for the people who need health care most.

Deficit-increasing, welfare expansion, quality-of-care reducing proposal: the very problems the GOP argues the House/Senate bills are guilty of, this bill has in *spades*.
 
The shop across state lines is a red herring. Insurers want this so that they can move to states with less regulation and increase rates unfettered.
 
[quote name='usickenme']the shop across state lines is a red herring. Insurers want this so that they can move to states with less regulation and increase rates, reduce coverage offered, and increase the categories of high-risk patients they can deny coverage to unfettered.[/quote]

ftfy.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Obama sent a letter to Congress today saying he was planning on added four of the Republicans' ideas on health care.

Surely they'll see that he's trying to build a consensus with them and seeing his good intentions, will come back to the table to talk about what else they can hash out on a possible agreement.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/do...-writes-to-congress-on-health-care.php?page=1[/QUOTE]


If you can't beat them.......get them to join you?
 
Obama knows he still not going to get their votes - after all, the whole frame of "start from scratch" is empty because no matter what the bill looks like, Republicans won't vote on it.

But politically if you make it appear like you're behaving in a bipartisan manner and not getting bipartisan support, then the Republicans will be viewed as the obstructionists they truly are.
 
They're not going to vote for it anyway though. If the options are make them look like douches or have a better bill by not including any of their stuff, I'd rather have a better bill. Good policy is good politics.
 
If Obama passes the bill with reconciliation the Republicans will more than likely gain control of the House this fall. Or at the very least, it'll be close to the point of where nothing gets done.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But politically if you make it appear like you're behaving in a bipartisan manner and not getting bipartisan support, then the Republicans will be viewed as the obstructionists they truly are.[/QUOTE]

And that will be they key in the elections this fall.

The republicans are going to try to say the systems broken yada, yada, yada. Obama, the DNC, each democratic candidate etc. has to do a masterful job of getting the message to our dimwitted populace that it's broken because republicans have been 100% obstructionists with no interest in compromising on any issue.

And a representative democracy is broken pretty much only when that happens and one of the controlling parties abjectly refuses to compromise on any issue.

They have to sell that the republicans are the PROBLEM, not the solution.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If Obama passes the bill with reconciliation the Republicans will more than likely gain control of the House this fall. Or at the very least, it'll be close to the point of where nothing gets done.[/QUOTE]

If 1.2 million more American suddenly have no income and it stays that way, we'll have riots long before elections.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

They have to sell that the republicans are the PROBLEM, not the solution.[/QUOTE]

That's going to be very tough when the polls look like they do for reform, and the only "solutions" anyone can come up with require deficit spending on a massive and/or cost us all greatly.

I believe the polls are still showing that Americans feel the Economy/debt is a higher priority than health care reform. As long as that holds true, Republicans have the upper hand - simply because almost all solutions the Democrats come up with for everything have huge price tags.

Republicans have everything to gain, politically, by letting the Dems pass a neutered half baked bill through that doesn't really fix anything but costs a ton (all because they promised to), and I think that's their plan.
 
You should vote Republican, then, thrust. That'll get 'em on the right track.

And, of course, because the health care bills never end up paying for themselves at all. That's true. fuck the long term estimates, they're just lies. Get real conservatives in there; they'll get the job done.
 
Not only do I hate Republicans, but it's pretty clear they aren't interested in fixing health care. The problem with health care between repubs and democrats are that they see the fundamental problems differently, so their solutions are totally different.

My take on health care is that the system is clearly not ideal as is. That being said, I've not seen one idea that I feel sounds like a good one, from anyone. Someone is just going to have to DO SOMETHING. Change it up. Shake it up and hope for the best - because it can't stay the way it is (kind of like the American Idol judge panel).
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If Obama passes the bill with reconciliation the Republicans will more than likely gain control of the House this fall. Or at the very least, it'll be close to the point of where nothing gets done.[/QUOTE]

You guys keep saying that and im certain you have the Democrats best interest in mind...
/concern trolls
 
Why not just have public health care that is mandatory for everyone? If you are too poor you get a refund with your income tax refund. If you are rich you can pay extra to go to a private doctor.
 
thrust. some vs threads from years ago describing our mounting national debt and growing deficit spending - thrust's deadly serious suggestion was just that we "hit the reset button," which, I guess, meant that we would no longer acknowledge or pay any of our outstanding debt.

It's sitting in committee in the House - the "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU Recovery Act of 2006."
 
Republicans are trying to revive the MO of constitutionality of the individual mandate. O'Reilly was grillin some dudes about it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Republicans are trying to revive the MO of constitutionality of the individual mandate. O'Reilly was grillin some dudes about it.[/QUOTE]

?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']thrust. some vs threads from years ago describing our mounting national debt and growing deficit spending - thrust's deadly serious suggestion was just that we "hit the reset button," which, I guess, meant that we would no longer acknowledge or pay any of our outstanding debt.

It's sitting in committee in the House - the "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU Recovery Act of 2006."[/QUOTE]

The politicians' biggest problem with this is that, if we did it,nobody would lend to us anymore. Thus, it would require massive budget cuts. And it follows that the politicians won't allow it.

But something has to happen. What we are doing now can't continue for much longer. We either (1) default; (2) bring budgets into balance and start paying off debts; or (3) inflate our way out. Sadly, for those of us who are responsible in their lifestyles, (3) is by far the most likely since it is easily the most painless way for politicians and thus the path of least resistance. As a nation we would prefer (2), and (1) would be an unmitigated disaster that could shake the very foundations of the world economy.
 
They think forcing people to buy ANYTHING (in this case health insurance) is unconstitutional. O'Reilly was arguing that point yesterday on his show.
 
No, elprincipe, the idea of a "reset" is preposterous because it's economically childish (or something more 10 degrees beyond 'infantile' because it's such a poorly thought through idea).

Not to mention it'll start us off at a debt already due to the military spending we'll engage in defending ourselves from...*cough* "Collection Agencies."

As a nation we prefer to have our cake and eat it too. People pay lip service to wanting to see reduced spending, but those attitudes fall by the wayside anytime something moderately negative occurs. Look at political rhetoric; the people who want no health care reform have no problem with health care, those that want it can't afford it right now.

Bottom line is that folks 'round here call me biased, but I show my ability to think outside my own worldview time and time again. I'd have listed the three options you did above, as well as a key fourth that I find it shameful you omitted as one of the more 'moderate' conservative folks around here: (4) return marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels - which is a part of your (2) above, possibly. You don't state it outright and I know you hate taxes. But soak the rich to get out of debt. It's a possibility; after all, most of our national debt didn't start accruing until after Reagan's first round of massive, massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
I don't advocate a 'reset button' for healthcare, no. I don't have an answer - which is why I've largely stayed on the sidelines in this debate. I have not studied the problem enough to really form an opinion on the solution. What I have done is read enough of the two parties plans to know I really dislike them, or the consequences, they would ultimately have.

As far as the economy goes though, I do think we are past the point of no return already. The only thing left to discuss is the best way to mitigate the coming economic apocalypse coming down the pike. At this point, everyones 'bandaid' ideas are usually just going to make it worse.

You can interpret that to mean I advocate a big reset button, maybe I do, I don't know.
 
I have not studied the problem enough to really form an opinion on the solution.
Click to expand...

Never stopped you before.

What I have done is read enough of the two parties plans to know I really dislike them, or the consequences, they would ultimately have.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt you have done even that.
 
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/03/04/3978658-best-graph-ever

4407033126_a8a6d28d37_o.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No, elprincipe, the idea of a "reset" is preposterous because it's economically childish (or something more 10 degrees beyond 'infantile' because it's such a poorly thought through idea).

Not to mention it'll start us off at a debt already due to the military spending we'll engage in defending ourselves from...*cough* "Collection Agencies."

As a nation we prefer to have our cake and eat it too. People pay lip service to wanting to see reduced spending, but those attitudes fall by the wayside anytime something moderately negative occurs. Look at political rhetoric; the people who want no health care reform have no problem with health care, those that want it can't afford it right now.

Bottom line is that folks 'round here call me biased, but I show my ability to think outside my own worldview time and time again. I'd have listed the three options you did above, as well as a key fourth that I find it shameful you omitted as one of the more 'moderate' conservative folks around here: (4) return marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels - which is a part of your (2) above, possibly. You don't state it outright and I know you hate taxes. But soak the rich to get out of debt. It's a possibility; after all, most of our national debt didn't start accruing until after Reagan's first round of massive, massive tax cuts for the wealthy.[/QUOTE]

Um, "bring budgets into balance" (which is word for word what I said) does not foreclose on the possibility of tax increases. I do think taxes are incredibly too high, but have consistently advocated on these boards higher taxes on the wealthy until our fiscal mess is sorted out. Additionally, I would support estate taxes and closing all sorts of vile tax loopholes/giveaways to the well-connected. The real difficult part of such a plan is the government following through by (1) using the money (along with drastically reduced spending) to solve our fiscal crisis; and (2) after that lowering taxes dramatically and keeping spending in check.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, what does the CBO know compared to elprincipe's gut instinct?

You'll have to do better than just say "oh, no, it's worse than that."[/QUOTE]

Gut instinct has nothing to do with it and you know that. Don't play dumb. The CBO is grading the bill that the Democrats put in front of them, nothing more, nothing less. That bill has all sorts of accounting gimmickry to make it seem like it doesn't massively increase the deficit, when the effect would be to do just that.

Here's a video to help you understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs
 
It is your gut instinct, elp, that the CBO are willing participants in chicanery and accounting tricks - and also your gut instinct that Paul Ryan is correct in his claims.

You're combatting the analysis of a nonpartisan org with a Republican. Please.
 
Even if prince wasn't full of it
he is
and the numbers didn't add up the Democrats at least tried to contain costs, there are cost saving mechanisms that are in place.

/Obamacare my ass
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']In regards to the CBO, it doesn't help that we were hearing one thing from the CBO, then Obama calls a very unusal meeting with Douglas Elmendor and then we starting hearing different things...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...l-budget-office-director-as-inappropriat.html[/QUOTE]

You're not handling the numbers. You're not dealing with a criticism of the analysis. You're taking one blog from mid-2009 (remember how the public option wasn't dead at that point?) and trying to make a wholesale claim about the CBO's analysis of the health care bill.

Whereas the image I linked to explicitly is based on the Senate version of the bill.

Don't divert. Tackle it head on.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're not handling the numbers. You're not dealing with a criticism of the analysis. You're taking one blog from mid-2009 (remember how the public option wasn't dead at that point?) and trying to make a wholesale claim about the CBO's analysis of the health care bill.

Whereas the image I linked to explicitly is based on the Senate version of the bill.

Don't divert. Tackle it head on.[/QUOTE]

Here's a foolproof and complete criticism: Nu uh.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're not handling the numbers. You're not dealing with a criticism of the analysis. You're taking one blog from mid-2009 (remember how the public option wasn't dead at that point?) and trying to make a wholesale claim about the CBO's analysis of the health care bill.

Whereas the image I linked to explicitly is based on the Senate version of the bill.

Don't divert. Tackle it head on.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that the CBO lost some credibility over that ruckus (and it's not just one blog - go google it.).

I mean, perhaps if this meeting between Obama and the CBO had been on CSpan where we could have known exactly what went on...
 
You people and your circular logic. "debate" to you is the snipe hunt for an analog, settling for a chinese knock-off of a comparable situation, and calling it a career.

Take on the estimate. I double dog dare ya.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You people and your circular logic. "debate" to you is the snipe hunt for an analog, settling for a chinese knock-off of a comparable situation, and calling it a career.

Take on the estimate. I double dog dare ya.[/QUOTE]

The correct responses were :wall: or #-o

Try to be succinct.
 
Here's the first major flaw in that graph, Myke. Just for you.

The Senate bill isn't what would go into law.

Someone could propose a bill where we tax the evil, filthy rich 98% of their wealth. The CBO could make a pretty chart. None of it would mean crap because the bill wouldn't pass.

This chart is just pretty colors to distract you from reality. If they could have some how made it metallic, you'd be so mesmerized by the shiny you probably wouldn't have been able to post it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Here's the first major flaw in that graph, Myke. Just for you.

The Senate bill isn't what would go into law.

Someone could propose a bill where we tax the evil, filthy rich 98% of their wealth. The CBO could make a pretty chart. None of it would mean crap because the bill wouldn't pass.

This chart is just pretty colors to distract you from reality. If they could have some how made it metallic, you'd be so mesmerized by the shiny you probably wouldn't have been able to post it.[/QUOTE]

Do you know which bill is going to pass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top