Another GOP Flip-Flop on Health Care

[Polk]

Okay, how about, it will be more expensive than doing nothing according to Health and Human Services per today's AP story. That savings from Medicare required to help pay for it will not materialize. Again from same article.

It's expected that expansion coverage to a larger percentage of the population will increase cost in the short-run. The cost savings come into play over the longer run. As for the second claim, that's not from the AP article. That's from conservative bloggers commenting on the AP article. The AP article cites that the report addresses if it feels the savings are political possible.

Au Contraire. In the short run, taxes go into effect and services are delayed for three years. That is how the cost is contained over ten years. Neat trick that.

Paying for 7 years of service with ten years of taxes. After the tenth year, cost will continue to escalate and the first three year cushion will be gone.

It would really help you if you stopped listening to Rush and Beck for your news. The tax provisions of the bill kick in at the same time the subsidies do.

 

[Annie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/health/policy/12health.html

December 12, 2009
Senate Hits New Roadblocks on Health Care Bill

By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders hit a rough patch Friday in their push for sweeping health care legislation, as they tried to fend off criticism of their proposals from a top Medicare official, Republicans and even members of their own party.

Slogging through a 12th day of debate on the legislation, the Senate found itself at an impasse over a proposal to allow imports of low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other countries.

Democratic leaders tried to kill or neuter the proposal, offered by a senior Democrat, Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota.

The Medicare official, meanwhile, said that total national health spending would increase slightly as a result of the Senate bill, put together by the majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. President Obama has repeatedly said that one of his top goals is to slow the growth of health costs.

Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Friday that under Mr. Reid’s bill national health spending from 2010 to 2019 would total $35.5 trillion. That is $234 billion, or 0.7 percent, more than the amount projected under current law, he added.

...

There're reasons over 61% in CNN poll are against this bill.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, look at how great Medicare worked out! Al least $60billion ANNUALLY to fraud, $60 FUCKING BILLION IN REAL CASH MONEY EACH AND EVERY FUCKING YEAR!!!!

And there is over 150 billion in fraud per year in the private health insurance system.

And the Program is TRILLIONS UNDERFUNDED!

Let's double down on a losing bet.

Ever stop to investigate why it's underfunded by trillions? It's due to rising health care costs caused by the beloved market.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate majority can scrap the sixty-vote rule any time it wants.

 

[Polk]

The Senate majority can scrap the sixty-vote rule any time it wants.

Only at the start of a session of Congress. During the session, it takes 67 votes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate majority can scrap the sixty-vote rule any time it wants.

Only at the start of a session of Congress. During the session, it takes 67 votes.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[Christopher]

Still no response to my post showing that entire premise of this thread is false. How is it that when one Republican makes a stupid argument that people conclude all or even a majority of the GOP supports that position?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your premise, correct or not, is unimportant, Christopher, to the discussion.

 

[Christopher]

Your premise, correct or not, is unimportant, Christopher, to the discussion.

I'm talking about the THREAD's premise, not mine. How do you consider the premise of the thread as unimportant to the discussion? Maybe you need to read my post again before you understand my point.

 

[Polk]

Still no response to my post showing that entire premise of this thread is false. How is it that when one Republican makes a stupid argument that people conclude all or even a majority of the GOP supports that position?

Which one is the stupid argument? Because both are pretty dumb.

 

[Christopher]

Still no response to my post showing that entire premise of this thread is false. How is it that when one Republican makes a stupid argument that people conclude all or even a majority of the GOP supports that position?

Which one is the stupid argument? Because both are pretty dumb.

You are right, the thread premise is just as dumb as the one Republican who said the bill was not long enough.

 

[Polk]

Still no response to my post showing that entire premise of this thread is false. How is it that when one Republican makes a stupid argument that people conclude all or even a majority of the GOP supports that position?

Which one is the stupid argument? Because both are pretty dumb.

You are right, the thread premise is just as dumb as the one Republican who said the bill was not long enough.

The thread premise is that the GOP will find anything to bitch about. Just like how they clamor for more and more debate on a bill for which they're already said they're all voting against even if they got concessions on everything they wanted.

 

[Christopher]

Which one is the stupid argument? Because both are pretty dumb.

You are right, the thread premise is just as dumb as the one Republican who said the bill was not long enough.

The thread premise is that the GOP will find anything to bitch about. Just like how they clamor for more and more debate on a bill for which they're already said they're all voting against even if they got concessions on everything they wanted.

If that was the premise, why is the title “Another GOP Flip-Flop on Health Care”? It seemed as though you were saying that the entire or majority of the GOP had “flip-flopped”.

I agree that it was a desperate attempt at complaining about the health care bill. Yet, the Democrats do the same thing with bills they do not like. Was it your point to just show that just Republicans can have dumb arguments? If you are, then you are only making this point to further justify the current health care bill. There is still plenty to complain about with this health care bill without resorting to arguments of the length (or lack thereof).

 

[EriktheRed]

After months and months of complaining about the length of the bill:
Republicans Attack Size of House Health Care Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Poe speaks to chamber on health care reform - Monday, August 24, 2009 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Republicans are now bitching that the health care bill is not long enough:

YouTube - Republicans Now Arguing Senate Bill Is Not Long Enough

"And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?"

Get me up to speed on something here:

It's my understanding a bill has already passed the Senate after dealing with a devil in Dem's clothing named Ben Nelson. It's also my understanding that, should the House pass the Senate bill, it would go back to the Senate for the reconciliation process, which is not subject to filibuster. What else can Senate GOPers do at this point?

 

[EriktheRed]

Oh, and speaking of wingnut Enzi, this may have been posted elsewhere, but it may as well go here, too:

Mike Enzi: All This Transparency I Called For Will Turn The Health Care Summit Into A 'Media Show'!

Yeah, wouldn't want the media to show how once again the GOP can't defend themselves after the Prez publicly calls them out.

heh...