Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Democrats had nearly a 3:1 voter registration in Massachusetts.

Very different situation. This guy is a friggin contractor - not a politician.

If anything came out of the Florida congressional election, it is that the Democratic base was as energized as the opposition this time around.

That is a very positive way to look at it - Good for you.

And it is not as simple as some here choose to believe. Many factors will come into play, including the possibility of Tea Party candidates as third parties, splitting the vote on the right. This is the greatest fear of the Republican establishment.

And a great hope of the D's

Hell, even Harry Reid, who is probably DOA in a two-party race, has more than a fighting chanced if there is a Tea Party candidate as is a very real possibility.

Scary - very scary, but probably true.

Originally Posted by classicman

Very different situation. This guy is a friggin contractor - not a politician.

That is a very positive way to look at it - Good for you.

And a great hope of the D's

Scary - very scary, but probably true.

The secret plan is to use 12,000 IRS that you claimed were in the bill (when in fact, that was a figment of Beck's imagination that you bought into) to take out the opposition house by house.

[classicman]

Children you have your own thread - go sling shit there.


(I can't believe I just typed that)

[classicman]

How many are they going to hire then? No one says that they aren't hiring more. The 16,500 number was based upon the report of the the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. If I read it correctly, it is a high number -

In its analysis, the CBO wrote that it had "not completed an estimate of the discretionary costs that would be associated with the legislation," including the costs for the IRS and other "federal agencies that would be responsible for implementing the provisions of the legislation."

But CBO did offer an estimate of the costs to the IRS for "implementing the eligibility determination, documentation, and verification processes for premium and cost-sharing credits." The IRS, the analysis said, "would probably" need to spend "between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years."

However, CBO did not translate that dollar range into a possible number of new hires. Instead, that task was taken up by another group -- the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Politifact

The real number is unknown. Reported guesses, and thats all they are, are somewhere between 8,250 and 16,500. I guessed at the middle which was the 12,000 you conveniently cited.

The truth is there will be hires at the IRS and the actual number is unknown at this time. Could it be 12,000? Absolutely. Maybe more? Well from what I've seen by our Gov't they never spend less and nothing is ever under budget.

Of course there will be hires as well as much the funds dedicated to an enhanced infrastructure and other non-personnel expenditures to process forms to provide as documentation to those who opt in to the Exchange.

The high numbers in the Republic analysis are as much, or more, a political statement, rather than a statement of facts.

But thanks for at least providing a credible link.

It does get tiring seeing comments posted as "facts" that more often than not, are not backed up with a link when requested. The argument that "I dont have to prove I am right..,,,you have to prove I am wrong".....IMO, is not an honest way to discuss an issue.

And finally. the politics of health care, and the so-called propaganda, is not all on one side as some would to suggest.

One cant cite the CBO when it suits ones purpose, then claim it is "a tool of the White House" when it does not....or conveniently cite govt data when it suits you and dismissing govt data as biased when it doesnt.

But my comment was mostly meant as a joke.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Of course there will be hires

Thanks for admitting that.

The high numbers in the Republic analysis are as much, or more, a political statement, rather than a statement of facts.

Gee really? That is why I chose in the middle.

It does get tiring seeing comments posted as "facts" that more often than not, are not backed up with a link when requested. The argument that "I dont have to prove I am right..,,,you have to prove I am wrong".....IMO, is not an honest way to discuss an issue.

Not my game - got a bitch with someone else? Take it up with them.

And finally. the politics of health care, and the so-called propaganda, is not all on one side as some would to suggest.

Nope the D's are spinning just as much as the R's.

One cant cite the CBO when it suits ones purpose, then claim it is "a tool of the White House" when it does not....or conveniently cite govt data when it suits you and dismissing govt data as biased when it doesnt.

Was there some other source of data in this case? And no I didn't personally cite the CBO. It was used to reference how the number was derrived.

But my comment was mostly meant as a joke.

Backhanded at best the way I'm reading it. w/e ... I tried.

IMO, you do much the same as you accuse others of doing....with the addition of always being the martyr ("w/e...I tried")...or your "hidden" signature...not a cheap shot at someone?

The examples are numerous....the posting of statements of "fact" and when asked to cite a source, you turn the table. (my favorite example? How is a site that relies solely on govt data -- stimuluswatch.org - more credible than the govt data? I still dont get it)

Taking the middle road? More like straddling the fence. (How do you take the middle road when charges of Nazis in Congress are thrown into discussions?). You either stand up and say "bullshit" or you go quiet and enable it.

And the endless links that you find "interesting"....if they are so interesting, take a fucking position on them...not wait to see what others might think!

The jokes? Come on, dude....you are always complaining that people dont get it when you "joke"...because they (or at least I) see it as backhanded shots.

Honestly, I gave up on having honest discussions here....now I'm just here (dont worry, it will be less often...I have a site where adults actually discuss the issues from all sides w/o making it personal) for the kick of pointing out the hypocrisies and double standards.

So......on with the Merciless Merc and Classhole comedy hour! The floor is all yours, guys.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, you do much the same as you accuse others of doing....with the addition of always being the martyr ("w/e...I tried")...or your "hidden" signature...not a cheap shot at someone?

The examples are numerous....the posting of statements of "fact" and when asked to cite a source, you turn the table. (my favorite example? How is a site that relies solely on govt data -- stimuluswatch.org - more credible than the govt data? I still dont get it)

Taking the middle road? More like straddling the fence. (How do you take the middle road when charges of Nazis in Congress are thrown into discussions?). You either stand up and say "bullshit" or you go quiet and enable it.

And the endless links that you find "interesting"....if they are so interesting, take a fucking position on them...not wait to see what others might think!

The jokes? Come on, dude....you are always complaining that people dont get it when you "joke"...because they (or at least I) see it as backhanded shots.

Honestly, I gave up on having honest discussions here....now I'm just here (dont worry, it will be less often...I have a site where adults actually discuss the issues from all sides w/o making it personal) for the kick of pointing out the hypocrisies and double standards.

So......on with the Merciless Merc and Classhole comedy hour! The floor is all yours, guys.

Oh, give us the link.

[classicman]

Well at least there is that one positive.

[classicman]

Insurance premiums are likely to keep going up over the next few years. Experts predict that the law's early benefits — such as expanded coverage for children and young adults — could nudge rates a little higher than would otherwise have been the case. Also, insurers and medical providers could try to raise their prices ahead of big shifts set for 2014.

Under the 10-year, $1 trillion plan, 2014 is when competitive insurance markets for individuals and small businesses are expected to open, and tax credits start flowing to help millions of middle-class households now uninsured. Medicaid will expand and pick up millions of low-income people. Most Americans would be required to carry health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship. Insurers no longer could turn away those in poor health.

More than 30 million previously uninsured people would gain coverage quickly — and they'll start going to the doctor for care previously postponed. Increased demand will push up health care spending, putting more pressure on premiums.

The cost controls in the bill are unlikely to provide much of a counterweight. Democrats scrambling to line up votes for the final bill weakened a provision that would have enforced austerity through a hefty tax on high-cost employer coverage.

Other savings in the law — mainly Medicare cuts — may prove politically unsustainable, according to the government's own experts.

The problem isn't that the 2,700-page law is devoid of ideas for curbing costs. Many mainstream proposals are incorporated in some form. But what will work?

While the law creates a commission to keep pursuing deeper Medicare savings, there's no overall cost control strategy and no single official to coordinate many experiments seeking greater efficiency.

"This bill takes a sort of spaghetti approach to cost control," said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who supports the broad goals of the overhaul. "You throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what will stick. Health care, Round Two, is when we will make a serious effort at cutting costs down, based on what this law has shown us."

If the law gets a B plus for expanding coverage to 95 percent of eligible Americans, it probably deserves a C minus or D for cost control. The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, with some results worse than what other developed countries get by spending far less.

"Most people who have problems with health care costs now are not going to see much change in the next few years," said Mark McClellan, who ran Medicare under former Republican President George W. Bush. "Hopefully some of these ideas will work, but it's not automatic. I do hope we can revisit this in a more bipartisan manner."

link

[TheMercenary]

I hope the premiums go out of the roof....

[TheMercenary]

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -- adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...osts.html?_r=2

[TheMercenary]

Endangered House Democrat Baron Hill justified his vote for the health-care bill by declaring:
This reform version covers more uninsured Americans than the respective House and Senate bills, while also reducing the deficit more effectively. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the revised bill reduces the deficit by one hundred and thirty eight billion dollars during the first ten years of the program, and reduces the deficit by more than one trillion dollars in the second ten years, effectively making it the biggest deficit reduction legislation since 1993.

Endangered House Democrat John Boccieri justified his vote for the health-care bill by declaring:

This bill may not be perfect but it strikes the proper balance of reducing costs, increasing consumer choices and lowering the staggering deficit from runaway health care spending.

Endangered House Democrat . . . eh, you're catching the drift.

Charlie Wilson of Ohio:

I have seen the CBO score and the reconciliation changes for myself. This bill will not add a dime to the deficit.

Suzanne Kosmas of Florida:

The bill before us now represents the single largest deficit reduction in over a decade, saving nearly $140 billion in the first 10 years and over $1.2 trillion in the decade to follow. This legislation provides truly fiscally responsible reform, and it contains the strongest measures ever enacted to help eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the system, to rein in skyrocketing health care costs, and to stabilize Medicare while preserving benefits.

AmericanThinker

[TheMercenary]

Premiums are going up...

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/...37&m=126497751

[xoxoxoBruce]

What's new, medical shit has been going up 6%ish a year for awhile, even though the recession.