massachusetts

[Ursa Majoris]

have a test. make guidelines. bp, chol, sugars, weight, bmi, etc. u take the test every year. u get rated.

Who sets this test? The same doctors that say 180 pounds is too heavy for a 6' 3" man? The government? Insurers?

 

Kinda ironic, all this coming from you, doncha think?

[Clubfoothead]

If you or your significant other are pregnant with a fetus that you know will have major health problems or if you are concerned that your kid may one day develop significant helath problems and you aren't sure about having the baby or not, one thing to consider is will your fetus be able to obtain health insurance for someone else's profit? It it will not be profitable for someone to insure the kid, that's something to consider.

[bushwacked]

have a test. make guidelines. bp, chol, sugars, weight, bmi, etc. u take the test every year. u get rated.

 

Your avatar makes more sense now, comrade.

[Kid Cid]

so you're saying it's up to perch to paint policies he opposes in the most palate-pleasing semantic light? and if he doesn't he's ruining the country?

 

in any case, I think calling it an entitlement is absolutely factually relevant, given the one-way history of other entitlements in this country (and of course, the fact that the bill DOES create a new entitlement). the people pushing this bill know that history as well as anyone, which is a big reason why they are desperate to get something, anything, passed while they can. and that was the question which was asked. perch is kind of getting piled on today, and with respect to that particular answer he gave, I think it is entirely unfair.

Az, you are not this dense. Perch isn't calling it an entitlement. Perch is saying that the Democratic agenda is to create a new entitlement. It's all about his personal biases getting in the way of a factual discussion as opposed to him spouting demagogic hyperbole.

[Kid Cid]

If you or your significant other are pregnant with a fetus that you know will have major health problems or if you are concerned that your kid may one day develop significant helath problems and you aren't sure about having the baby or not, one thing to consider is will your fetus be able to obtain health insurance for someone else's profit? It it will not be profitable for someone to insure the kid, that's something to consider.

This is a hugh problem right here IMO. How do you ensure that this person would ever get insurance coverage in a purely private market?

[Perchoutofwater]

If you or your significant other are pregnant with a fetus that you know will have major health problems or if you are concerned that your kid may one day develop significant helath problems and you aren't sure about having the baby or not, one thing to consider is will your fetus be able to obtain health insurance for someone else's profit? It it will not be profitable for someone to insure the kid, that's something to consider.

 

You make a very good point. Just shooting off the hip I'd say you then do it the same way you do other types of aid to people with physical and mental handicaps. You could do a thing similar to government disability pay for insurance for those that are born with significant permanent health problems such as CF.

[Duchess Jack]

You make a very good point. Just shooting off the hip I'd say you then do it the same way you do other types of aid to people with physical and mental handicaps. You could do a thing similar to government disability pay for insurance for those that are born with significant permanent health problems such as CF.

but wouldn't that mean that they are spending your money? I thought that was the thing you didn't want.

[caddyman]

but wouldn't that mean that they are spending your money? I thought that was the thing you didn't want.

You need to pay more attention..from another thread you are supposed to know that he meant something entirely different. The new rule of the huddle is that you must assume what the other guy meant not actually read what he said. Try and keep up. Thanks in advance.

[Duchess Jack]

You need to pay more attention..from another thread you are supposed to know that he meant something entirely different. The new rule of the huddle is that you must assume what the other guy meant not actually read what he said. Try and keep up. Thanks in advance.

can you please try again in English?

[driveby]

Paul Ryan v. the President

 

The Republican dissects ObamaCare's real costs. Democrats stay mute.

 

'Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it," President Obama declared yesterday as he urged Democrats to steamroll his plan through Congress. What hasn't been heard, however, is even a shred of White House honesty about the true costs of ObamaCare, or its fiscal consequences.

 

Nearby, we reprint Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's remarks at the health summit last week, which methodically dismantle the falsehoods—there is no other way of putting it—that Mr. Obama has used to sell "reform" and repeated again yesterday. No one in the political class has even tried to refute Mr. Ryan's arguments, though he made them directly to the President and his allies, no doubt because they are irrefutable. If Democrats are willing to ignore overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare and pass it anyway, then what's a trifling dispute over a couple of trillion dollars?

 

At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions—families, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one.

 

Mr. Obama's fiscal assertions are possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Democrats spent months calibrating. Readers can find the gory details in Mr. Ryan's pre-emptive rebuttal nearby, though one of the most egregious deceptions is that the bill counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending.

 

The real cost over a decade is about $2.3 trillion on paper, Mr. Ryan estimates, and even that is a lowball estimate considering how many people will flood to "free" health care and how many businesses will be induced to drop coverage. Mr. Obama claimed yesterday that the plan will cost "about $100 billion per year," but in fact the costs ramp up each year the program exists. The far more likely deficits are $460 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the next 10.

 

What Mr. Ryan calls "probably the most cynical gimmick" deserves special attention, which is known in Washington as the "doc fix." Next month Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 22% and deeper thereafter, though Congress is sure to postpone the reductions as it always does. Failing to account for this inevitability takes nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the ObamaCare books and by itself wipes out the "savings" that the White House continues to take credit for.

 

Some in the liberal cheering section now claim that this Medicare ruse isn't Mr. Obama's problem because it was first promised by Republicans and Bill Clinton in 1997. But then why did Democrats include the "doc fix" in all early versions of the bill to buy the support of the American Medical Association, only to dump this pricey item later when hiding it would make it easier to fake-reduce the deficit?

 

The President was (miraculously) struck dumb by Mr. Ryan's critique, and in his response drifted off into an irrelevant tangent about Medicare Advantage, while California Democrat Xavier Becerra claimed "you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office." But Mr. Ryan was careful to note that he didn't doubt the professionalism of CBO, only the truthfulness of the Democratic gimmicks that the budget gnomes are asked to score.

 

Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the "nonpartisan, independent" authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end.

 

The President also claimed the reason his plan is in trouble, and the reason Democrats must abuse the Senate's rules to ram this plan into law, is that "many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies." So most of Mr. Obama's first year in office has been paralyzed over nothing more than minor regulatory hair-splitting. This is so preposterous that the President can't possibly believe it.

 

Congress's spring break begins on March 29, and Democratic leaders plan on jamming this monster through Congress before then. Americans have to hope that enough rank-and-file Democrats aren't as deaf to fiscal honesty as this President.

 

WSJ

 

How can anyone be in favor of this? Just on principle what has the government done well? Education? The Post Office? The DMV? Fannie and Freddie? Social Security? Hell, this administration couldn't even handle Cash for Clunkers, and you want them to take over the health care system?

[The Irish Doggy]

The more I hear about health care the less I think something will happen. As I've said elsewhere, I have close friends in Mass who would be out on the street if not for the state healthcare system that covered their child's catastrophic accident after their insurance reached the lifetime maximum.

 

It seems to me that in all the rhetoric about big drug companies, litigation, doctor bills, etc. what gets lost is that there are very real people who just hit the unlucky lottery in life. Now I'm not saying that cost controls are unnecessary or that there aren't many issues to cover, but this is one of those issues that only hits home after you've experienced it personally. Its the right thing to do to help folks in these kinds of situations.

Edited March 4, 2010 by The Irish Doggy

[SayItAintSoJoe]

WSJ

 

How can anyone be in favor of this? Just on principle what has the government done well? Education? The Post Office? The DMV? Fannie and Freddie? Social Security? Hell, this administration couldn't even handle Cash for Clunkers, and you want them to take over the health care system?

 

I don't want them to take over health care either. I believe that would be like a "single payer" system or to a lessor extent a "public option" that evolves into a "single payer" system. I'm against "single payer" but I'm for the "public option" although the Senate bill doesn't seem to have either. I don't think the changes to the bill that they are proposing to pass through reconsiliation after the Senate bill is passed by the House will include them either.

 

Are there other parts of the current bill (or proposed changes) that would constitute a government take over of health care? I would assume by "take over" it would mean that after reform passes the insurance companies would all go out of business eventually and we would have a "single payer" system in the end.

 

I'm just having trouble connecting the dots of how we go from passing a bill that doesn't even have a "public option" to winding up with a "single payer" system in the end.

[wiegie]

I'm just having trouble connecting the dots of how we go from passing a bill that doesn't even have a "public option" to winding up with a "single payer" system in the end.

it goes something like this:

 

first step: underpants

second step: mumble mumble mumble

third step: profits

[Big John]

it goes something like this:

 

first step: underpants

second step: mumble mumble mumble

third step: profits

South Park gnomes

 

Phase 1: Collect Underpants

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit

[driveby]

Its the right thing to do to help folks in these kinds of situations.

I agree.

 

But we don't have to blow up the current system to do this.

[driveby]

The President’s Imaginary Health Plan

 

 

The president launched a last-ditch effort to pass a government takeover of American health care yesterday. To hear him tell it, his plan would let every American keep the health insurance he has today if he wants to. And it would reduce premiums, cut taxes for the middle class, slow the pace of rising costs, reduce the federal budget deficit, and keep bureaucrats out of health-care decisions too.

 

This latest presidential health-care pitch might have left some Americans scratching their heads. What plan is he talking about, they might ask themselves. Because the plan he described doesn’t remotely resemble anything the Democrats have assembled over the past year.

 

The Senate-passed bill, upon which the president’s latest offering is modeled, would not let Americans keep the insurance they have today. It would impose deep cuts in the private-insurance component of Medicare, called Medicare Advantage. Those cuts would force millions of seniors out of their current coverage, against their will. They would get much less by way of benefits to boot. And many millions of workers would lose their job-based plans as employers opted to pay the government’s fines instead of offering heavily regulated coverage themselves.

 

The Congressional Budget Office has also found that the Senate bill would increase, not decrease, premiums, as the president was forced to admit at the Blair House summit meeting last week. One-size-fits-all federal insurance requirements would force millions of Americans to buy more expensive coverage than they have selected in today’s marketplace. Research by a private actuarial firm shows that premiums would jump by more than 50 percent in the individual market and 20 percent for those in small employer plans.

 

The Senate bill would also impose massive middle-class tax increases, not cuts. There are new levies on insurers and device and drug makers in the Senate plan that would get passed on directly to middle-class consumers.

 

The president’s claims of cost control and fiscal responsibility are a complete illusion. He omits from his accounting the $371 billion in additional ten-year spending he has proposed for Medicare physician fees, and double-counts premium collections from a separate program to pay for his health-care plan.

 

Moreover, the deep cuts in Medicare the president relies on to pay for his entitlement expansions would not come from waste and abuse, as he asserted. He would impose arbitrary reductions in payments for every hospital and nursing home in the country, without regard to assessment of quality or patient needs. His own chief actuary says these cuts would push one in five facilities into deep financial distress, which means they are completely unrealistic.

 

The president’s plan also relies on revenue collected from the so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive insurance plans. Only the president doesn’t want to enforce it himself. He proposes to delay its implementation to 2018, long after he will have left the presidency. Yet he wants us to believe we can bank on the hundreds of billions of dollars this tax would supposedly raise in a second decade of implementation.

 

CBO says the president’s new entitlement spending would reach $200 billion by 2019, and then grow 8 percent every year thereafter. In other words, it would be another runaway entitlement program, piled on top of the unaffordable ones already on the books.

 

What the president described in his presentation yesterday does not exist. What does exist is a bill the public has resoundingly rejected in every way it can. And for very good reasons.

 

Is any of this in dispute?

[Kid Cid]

I agree.

 

But we don't have to blow up the current system to do this.

Blowing up the system is exactly what needs to happen. Not propping it up with chewing gum, bailing wire and millions of tax payer dollars.

[Perchoutofwater]

but wouldn't that mean that they are spending your money? I thought that was the thing you didn't want.

 

Ideally we wouldn't have any federal welfare, and very little state welfare. I'd like most of the assistance currently being given by the federal government given by charities, churches, and the local community. I do not think the federal government should be involved in any type of welfare, but unfortunately that horse has left the barn and there is little if any chance of getting it back in the barn. It would really be no different then what we currently have set up, though it could be improved on. I'm just thinking that is way to get around pre-existing conditions that are in no way the fault of the person with the condition.

[bpwallace49]

Blowing up the system is exactly what needs to happen. Not propping it up with chewing gum, bailing wire and millions of tax payer dollars.

 

+ infinity.

 

Unfortunatley none of our elected official have any idea of how to do this . . . the current bills doesnt address it, and Paul Ryans proposal (although it has some very good and salient points) does nothing about the core issues of cost control either.

 

Status quo is unacceptable, The solutions brought forth by elected officials dont work . . which leaves us screwed over again.

[bpwallace49]

I'd like most of the assistance currently being given by the federal government given by charities, churches, and the local community.

 

Perch the problem with that is areas that do not have extended wealth and/or the ability to have a pool of locally provided charities to fulfill need. Hell, a LOT of rural America woul;d be in extremely desperate straights without the federall subsidies for farmers.

 

It is a noble thought, I just think it is inherently unworkable on a large-scale level without radically decimating massive amounts of America to depression-level survival. I doubt that is your goal?

[Perchoutofwater]

The more I hear about health care the less I think something will happen. As I've said elsewhere, I have close friends in Mass who would be out on the street if not for the state healthcare system that covered their child's catastrophic accident after their insurance reached the lifetime maximum.

 

It seems to me that in all the rhetoric about big drug companies, litigation, doctor bills, etc. what gets lost is that there are very real people who just hit the unlucky lottery in life. Now I'm not saying that cost controls are unnecessary or that there aren't many issues to cover, but this is one of those issues that only hits home after you've experienced it personally. Its the right thing to do to help folks in these kinds of situations.

 

I don't know what you do up there, but down here we have fund raisers for those people through church's, fire departments, and banks. We donate money of our own accord to help those people, rather than have the government take it from us with the threat of jail. The only problem is when you get into long term care, and then medicaid kicks in and families and friends still help out. I have a cousin that has been in a semi-vegitative state for 18 years. My aunt and uncle haven't been bankrupted by it. They got the support they needed from the community, church, and family, as well as medicaid.

[bpwallace49]

I don't know what you do up there, but down here we have fund raisers for those people through church's, fire departments, and banks. We donate money of our own accord to help those people, rather than have the government take it from us with the threat of jail. The only problem is when you get into long term care, and then medicaid kicks in and families and friends still help out. I have a cousin that has been in a semi-vegitative state for 18 years. My aunt and uncle haven't been bankrupted by it. They got the support they needed from the community, church, and family, as well as medicaid.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch the problem with that is areas that do not have extended wealth and/or the ability to have a pool of locally provided charities to fulfill need. Hell, a LOT of rural America woul;d be in extremely desperate straights without the federall subsidies for farmers.

 

It is a noble thought, I just think it is inherently unworkable on a large-scale level without radically decimating massive amounts of America to depression-level survival. I doubt that is your goal?

 

Why do you think it would send us back to depression level survival? Maybe if we got rid of government price controls, we wouldn't need to subsidize the farmers? Sure you might pay more or a gallon of milk, but you'd be paying less in taxes, and I think on a whole you would end up better off as you wouldn't have money slipping away through the inefficiencies of the government.

[Duchess Jack]

Ideally we wouldn't have any federal welfare, and very little state welfare. I'd like most of the assistance currently being given by the federal government given by charities, churches, and the local community. I do not think the federal government should be involved in any type of welfare, but unfortunately that horse has left the barn and there is little if any chance of getting it back in the barn. It would really be no different then what we currently have set up, though it could be improved on. I'm just thinking that is way to get around pre-existing conditions that are in no way the fault of the person with the condition.

Okay. So let's say we get rid of all of that stuff.

 

What happens when somebody has a baby with very expensive birth defects and nobody wants to volunteer to help take care of the baby? Let's say there are 100 such occurances in Texas in a year at the cost of 250k each. You, your church and other churches are able to help the first 30. After that though - anybody willing to give says, nope - I have aleady done my part. Time for somebody else to help out. What happens to the other 70 babies? Do we say - sucks for you?

[bpwallace49]

Why do you think it would send us back to depression level survival? Maybe if we got rid of government price controls, we wouldn't need to subsidize the farmers? Sure you might pay more or a gallon of milk, but you'd be paying less in taxes, and I think on a whole you would end up better off as you wouldn't have money slipping away through the inefficiencies of the government.

 

Perch, it would specific areas of the country that do not have as nuch widespread wealth into depression level survival. Areas that have some affluence should be fine . . others wont.

 

You also assume that somehow charities will suddenly quadruple in donations with a corresponding drop in taxes? You REALLY think most people will do that instead of keep it for themselves? Perch, just based on conversations here at the huddle, I assume you do pretty well for yourself with the family construction business, right? You can AFFORD to be more charitable as all your needs , and more, are amply met, right? I remember a post that said "I am going to get mine regardless", right? I think the hole in your argument is assuming that everyone else is meeting all their needs with money to spare, and will increase their charitiable donations if taxes were lowered. It assumes that if they arent "forced" to provide for others, that most people would choose to just keep their money.

 

Gubmnet isnt an efficient system, it isnt the best case scenario EVER. But I dont think your method would work either . . . and I have no suggestions of an alternative.