Obamacare Repeal

[Grimm74]

So it's your position that, all things considered, Bush II's tax cuts reduced our federal debt and/or deficit?

 

It may have but to the degree you stated NO WAY. Bush also championed the prescription drug benefit plan for seniors that was originally tagged to cost over $600 Billion/10 years (which in the end the estimate now are only $400 billion b/c free market principles used in his bill brought down the cost significantly) Why aren't you gripping about the cost of that as well as the tax cuts?

 

Do we need to raise taxes? I think we do at some point, but in all honesty we can only do so much with raised taxes. The fed debt is so bad. We have to cut spending. We have to restructure Med benefits and SS. These are a must!!! Raising taxes is pissing in the wind compared to where the costs are going to end up.

 

The medical system is flawed b/c it isn't operated in a free market at all. Nobody knows what medical expenses are. Consumers are so many steps removed from the purchase. Companies we work for and the government completely and totally distort the reality. That's the problem and this bill does even come withing 1000 miles of this. All is does is increase more government and corporate involvement.

 

There is something to be said for the fact that once the US government and Corporations got into providing health care for the masses is the exact same time medical cost started growing exponentially... not that I am saying this is the only reason....there are more just this TO ME is the BIGGEST.

 

I am not stating we do not give aid to the poor at all. It is our obligation to help. The system of delivery is WRONG.

[Grimm74]

Apparently all YOU have is repeal. Please let us know what the "replace" portion of the Republican strategy consists of. TIA.

 

 

Link?

 

You accomplish nothing by lumping me in with a political talking point.

 

 

It is simple to me. Take government and corporations out of the process. Completely redesign the way the government subsidies health care for the poor and how individuals get health insurance. Put decisions back in the hands of individuals including the poor people.

 

First step No more government and corporate provide health care plans. I can go on but this is the tailgate... Politicians do not do the right thing on both sides b/c they get into the game of politics. Which is what most of do especially on these boards but it does nothing. I really want folks to talk about real things.

 

 

I have no interest in putting down either party I just want the whole system of delivery changed. We can still provide for the poor just a new system.

[bushwacked]

First step No more government and corporate provide health care plans.

 

[Grimm74]

 

I know the concept is very difficult to understand since we are all institutionalized... or at least I was until I switched to a high deductible/ HSA account once I decided to start my own business... It changed the way I looked at medical spending in an enormous way for the better. It also showed me how bad all the hands in the pot distorts the pricing of health care.

[Pope Flick]

I know the concept is very difficult to understand since we are all institutionalized... or at least I was until I switched to a high deductible/ HSA account once I decided to start my own business... It changed the way I looked at medical spending in an enormous way for the better. It also showed me how bad all the hands in the pot distorts the pricing of health care.

 

 

I was uninsured a few years back and developed a branchial cleft cyst - look it up. Had to go the cash route for surgery and MY eyes were opened at every place I went when they lopped 40-50% off the price because it was straight cash, homey.

 

The system is fubared, but the whole let's not fix it until everyone agrees on something is nothing but running out the clock for the status quo.

 

I look forward to the republican suggestions. Face it, the ball is rolling and that's better than what we have now: I know someone who threw out his back last month. When he went to claim some visits, etc he was dropped by his carrier who then had the gall to both refuse to pay AND offered him a new policy with his back as a pre-exiting condition. That is by and large what is being defended and it's at best disgusting.

[yo mama]

It may have but to the degree you stated NO WAY. Bush also championed the prescription drug benefit plan for seniors that was originally tagged to cost over $600 Billion/10 years (which in the end the estimate now are only $400 billion b/c free market principles used in his bill brought down the cost significantly) Why aren't you gripping about the cost of that as well as the tax cuts?

 

Do we need to raise taxes? I think we do at some point, but in all honesty we can only do so much with raised taxes. The fed debt is so bad. We have to cut spending. We have to restructure Med benefits and SS. These are a must!!! Raising taxes is pissing in the wind compared to where the costs are going to end up.

 

The medical system is flawed b/c it isn't operated in a free market at all. Nobody knows what medical expenses are. Consumers are so many steps removed from the purchase. Companies we work for and the government completely and totally distort the reality. That's the problem and this bill does even come withing 1000 miles of this. All is does is increase more government and corporate involvement.

 

There is something to be said for the fact that once the US government and Corporations got into providing health care for the masses is the exact same time medical cost started growing exponentially... not that I am saying this is the only reason....there are more just this TO ME is the BIGGEST.

 

I am not stating we do not give aid to the poor at all. It is our obligation to help. The system of delivery is WRONG.

The tax cuts had a $2.3mm trillion negative impact on the national deficit. Nonsensical ranting won't change that fact.

Edited January 20, 2011 by yo mama

[WaterMan]

The tax cuts had a $2.3mm trillion negative impact on the national deficit. Nonsensical ranting won't change that fact.

 

The simple facts are these: All of the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom. Conservatives thought they would force us to shrink the government. But with Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, did reduced taxes cause reduced spending? No. They led to ever-increasing borrowing and a ballooning deficit.

 

I thought the R in Republican ment Responsibility?

[yo mama]

I thought the R in Republican ment Responsibility?

See? You know you're right when WaterMan agrees with you.

[Grimm74]

The tax cuts had a $2.3mm trillion negative impact on the national deficit. Nonsensical ranting won't change that fact.

 

First off this tread for ME who started has nothing to do with the bush tax cuts. I have stated many times that the bush tax cuts probably/did contributed to to the deficits. OK finished... if I were you I would also not consider an article in a paper as the end all be all of judgment on how cutting taxes effect the economy as a whole.

[yo mama]

First off this tread for ME who started has nothing to do with the bush tax cuts. I have stated many times that the bush tax cuts probably/did contributed to to the deficits. OK finished... if I were you I would also not consider an article in a paper as the end all be all of judgment on how cutting taxes effect the economy as a whole.

I've taken no position on the "economy as a whole." I've merely educated you on what "reconciliation" really is, when it has been used in the recent past, and corrected your (erroneous) assumptions about how that past use actually impacted the deficit. You are smarter for having read my posts. A simple "thank you" wouldn't hurt.

[SEC=UGA]

The tax cuts had a $2.3mm trillion negative impact on the national deficit. Nonsensical ranting won't change that fact.

 

The CBO can not prove that, no one can, they are wild assumptions based on historical numbers. You have to take a leap and assume that without the tax cuts the economy would have recovered and grown at the same rate.

[yo mama]

The CBO can not prove that, no one can, they are wild assumptions based on historical numbers. You have to take a leap and assume that without the tax cuts the economy would have recovered and grown at the same rate.

Again, I'm not talking about "the economy." I have taken the narrow position that cutting taxes resulted in less tax revenue, which compounded the deficit. Deficits grow when revenue goes down but spending does not.

 

The somewhat related point that tax cuts stimulated the economy is a different issue. And its one I'm not entirely convinced of. Despite record corporate profits, corporate America has largely saved that cash and paid down debt. The American people have also been deleveraging for several years now. The extra cash generate from those tax cuts, by in large, has not been used to hire people or buy stuff - and that's the kind of stuff that stimulates the economy.

[Grimm74]

I've taken no position on the "economy as a whole." I've merely educated you on what "reconciliation" really is, when it has been used in the recent past, and corrected your (erroneous) assumptions about how that past use actually impacted the deficit. You are smarter for having read my posts. A simple "thank you" wouldn't hurt.

 

Do not take this the wrong way but you haven't educated me on anything I have not already known. I do thank you for the attempt.

[Ursa Majoris]

You accomplish nothing by lumping me in with a political talking point.

 

 

It is simple to me. Take government and corporations out of the process. Completely redesign the way the government subsidies health care for the poor and how individuals get health insurance. Put decisions back in the hands of individuals including the poor people.

 

First step No more government and corporate provide health care plans. I can go on but this is the tailgate... Politicians do not do the right thing on both sides b/c they get into the game of politics. Which is what most of do especially on these boards but it does nothing. I really want folks to talk about real things.

 

 

I have no interest in putting down either party I just want the whole system of delivery changed. We can still provide for the poor just a new system.

It may be simple to you (and, quite frankly, it is to me too if the politics are removed) but I was asking about the Republican plan beyond wrecking the efforts of others. You seem to be confirming there is no such plan, since you haven't mentioned it.

 

Sooner or later, iconoclasm is not enough.

[Grimm74]

Again, I'm not talking about "the economy." I have taken the narrow position that cutting taxes resulted in less tax revenue, which compounded the deficit. Deficits grow when revenue goes down but spending does not.

 

The somewhat related point that tax cuts stimulated the economy is a different issue. And its one I'm not entirely convinced of. Despite record corporate profits, corporate America has largely saved that cash and paid down debt. The American people have also been deleveraging for several years now. The extra cash generate from those tax cuts, by in large, has not been used to hire people or buy stuff - and that's the kind of stuff that stimulates the economy.

 

most of the deleveraging is NOT on a volunteer bases. The statistics on paying down debt are VERY distorted by the fact of massive increase in bankruptcies and foreclosures. In these cases massive amounts of debt are written off and are apart of the "paying down debt" argument.

 

75% of the US economy is consumer spending. More money in their hands means more spending.

 

Why did Obama sign off on the tax cuts? As he put it is was to save american jobs which is the position of all those who supported the extending the tax cuts?

Edited January 20, 2011 by Grimm74

[Grimm74]

I was uninsured a few years back and developed a branchial cleft cyst - look it up. Had to go the cash route for surgery and MY eyes were opened at every place I went when they lopped 40-50% off the price because it was straight cash, homey.

 

The system is fubared, but the whole let's not fix it until everyone agrees on something is nothing but running out the clock for the status quo.

 

I look forward to the republican suggestions. Face it, the ball is rolling and that's better than what we have now: I know someone who threw out his back last month. When he went to claim some visits, etc he was dropped by his carrier who then had the gall to both refuse to pay AND offered him a new policy with his back as a pre-exiting condition. That is by and large what is being defended and it's at best disgusting.

 

That is very interesting b/c I have a $10,000 deductible plan. On a number of occasions I have not given my insurance information to see what would happen. On every occasion my cash cost was at a minimum 30% higher then my Blue Cross price. Some cases like my allergy shots, my cash price is $30 a visit. My BCBS cost is $6 a visit. Meaning I got step discounts b/c of the negotiated rates btw BCBS and health care providers.

 

On top of me having insurance through BCBS I get kind of a "discount card".

[Ursa Majoris]

That is very interesting b/c I have a $10,000 deductible plan. On a number of occasions I have not given my insurance information to see what would happen. On every occasion my cash cost was at a minimum 30% higher then my Blue Cross price. Some cases like my allergy shots, my cash price is $30 a visit. My BCBS cost is $6 a visit. Meaning I got step discounts b/c of the negotiated rates btw BCBS and health care providers.

 

On top of me having insurance through BCBS I get kind of a "discount card".

The fact that insurance is covering your flu shots is the exact reason the system is crap.

 

A high deductible policy is what I'm going to take out when I retire in order to bridge the gap between company insurance and Medicare. They are extremely affordable even for people in their 50s and 60s (maybe $400 / month) once you accept the need to fork over for the small stuff and you have the 10 grand deductible socked away.

[Pope Flick]

That is very interesting b/c I have a $10,000 deductible plan. On a number of occasions I have not given my insurance information to see what would happen. On every occasion my cash cost was at a minimum 30% higher then my Blue Cross price. Some cases like my allergy shots, my cash price is $30 a visit. My BCBS cost is $6 a visit. Meaning I got step discounts b/c of the negotiated rates btw BCBS and health care providers.

 

On top of me having insurance through BCBS I get kind of a "discount card".

 

 

Cedars billed my BCBS plan 3900 for a CT scan. When I called to arrange a cash payment it was knocked to 1100 without my asking for any break, it was simply because it was cash.

 

I don't know what's going on with your policy but that's what happened to me,

[Grimm74]

The fact that insurance is covering your flu shots is the exact reason the system is crap.

 

A high deductible policy is what I'm going to take out when I retire in order to bridge the gap between company insurance and Medicare. They are extremely affordable even for people in their 50s and 60s (maybe $400 / month) once you accept the need to fork over for the small stuff and you have the 10 grand deductible socked away.

 

Can you please read this stuff before you quote and respond? PLEASE.... BCBS is not COVERING my ALLERGY shot. They have negotiated down the rate with the providers since they have greater economies of scale then I do. I completely agree with all the rest you stated but the fact that you have to be older then 50.

 

Most to all non poverty folks can save up on their own to get the $10,000 deductible. Especially when you use an HSA!!!! If you are paying 30% in taxes you really only need to save $7000 not $10,000 and really you do not need to save it up in one year. Start by ditching that car payment, 50 inch screen tv, playstation 3, itunes, golf clubs, nights at the bar, dining out, "fancy" clothes, directv, fantasy football dues etc etc etc....

[Grimm74]

Cedars billed my BCBS plan 3900 for a CT scan. When I called to arrange a cash payment it was knocked to 1100 without my asking for any break, it was simply because it was cash.

 

I don't know what's going on with your policy but that's what happened to me,

 

 

Ok I MIGHT understand what happened. Did you ever get an end price figure from BCBS or was it just the health care provider stating the numbers?

[Pope Flick]

Ok I MIGHT understand what happened. Did you ever get an end price figure from BCBS or was it just the health care provider stating the numbers?

 

 

 

I received the bill the hospital sent BCBS, and called to correct them that it wasn't an insurance claim and it shouldn't have gone to them. They then lopped off the money. Pretty simple.

[SEC=UGA]

Again, I'm not talking about "the economy." I have taken the narrow position that cutting taxes resulted in less tax revenue, which compounded the deficit. Deficits grow when revenue goes down but spending does not.

 

The somewhat related point that tax cuts stimulated the economy is a different issue. And its one I'm not entirely convinced of. Despite record corporate profits, corporate America has largely saved that cash and paid down debt. The American people have also been deleveraging for several years now. The extra cash generate from those tax cuts, by in large, has not been used to hire people or buy stuff - and that's the kind of stuff that stimulates the economy.

 

You're going to have to be more specific, what period of time, recently, are you speaking of where lower taxes decreased revenue coming into the fed gov?

[Grimm74]

I received the bill the hospital sent BCBS, and called to correct them that it wasn't an insurance claim and it shouldn't have gone to them. They then lopped off the money. Pretty simple.

 

That is extremely strange. Seems to me the hospital is committing fraud. I do not see how an insurance provider would let themselves get a better rate then the average Joe walking in off the street. In my case(state and insurance policy type PPO) the operation makes pretty good sense. My cash price is higher then my insurance "discount card" price. Very logical....and has been 100% consistent.

 

Your example sounds like some sort of bureaucratic mess of price fixing and other junk. I know this is very state specific so I am not sure what in the world is going on where you are or the laws.

[Grimm74]

It may be simple to you (and, quite frankly, it is to me too if the politics are removed) but I was asking about the Republican plan beyond wrecking the efforts of others. You seem to be confirming there is no such plan, since you haven't mentioned it.

 

Sooner or later, iconoclasm is not enough.

 

I agree with you completely. I do not like the fact that they pushed repeal through without a replacement. Strategically to me it does not make sense. I do not understand what type of politics the Republicans are playing.

[Pope Flick]

That is extremely strange. Seems to me the hospital is committing fraud. I do not see how an insurance provider would let themselves get a better rate then the average Joe walking in off the street. In my case(state and insurance policy type PPO) the operation makes pretty good sense. My cash price is higher then my insurance "discount card" price. Very logical....and has been 100% consistent.

 

Your example sounds like some sort of bureaucratic mess of price fixing and other junk. I know this is very state specific so I am not sure what in the world is going on where you are or the laws.

 

 

You clearly aren't reading my posts very well, because it's the opposite of what happened: I got the better rate.