AP: Report: Overhaul would raise health care costs-- Finally the TRUTH!

[Annie]

I'm confused. The dems want to just use Medicare for UHC, but Medicare is going bankrupt, so WTF happens when Medicare goes broke from the dems adding the poor MFs??

That means that those of us who paid into Medicare all our working lives get pimped. I don't know if the DC morons get what that would really mean.

They do, they don't care. In fact, as I posted earlier, I think it's intentional.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nice that MSNBC would actually admit that the dems are screwing up. My guess is that the Unions told them........

 

[saveliberty]

I was channel surfing today and Beck was on. He mentioned that the unions are going to let the health care tax go. Then they can act all upset as they switch to a government run plan to save the membership money on taxes. Wow, what freedom to choose your coverage. The unions are going to screw their members again.

 

[xsited1]

AP: Report: Overhaul would raise health care costs-- Finally the TRUTH!

Insurance Death Spiral

(But the Democrats aren't listening.)

 

[Polk]

Ya...OK.

Elmendorf is named head of Congressional Budget Office

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill named Douglas Elmendorf, a former Clinton administration economist, to head the Congressional Budget Office.

You were saying .....
Past CBO Directors React to Elmendorf's Meeting With Obama - FOXBusiness.com

I guess you would prefer Obama cronies....or how about bootlickers?

The president doesn't select the head of the CBO. Furthermore, most of the people are CBO are career civil servants.

 

[Polk]

When the agency writing the report is staffed with Obama appointees, the reports will more than likely FAVOR their bosses position!!!

CBO isn't staffed with Obama appointees. So, dodge fail.

No, with Pelosi appointees. Each Congress (House) appoints its own director of CBO. However, one must say that Elmendorf did initially try to keep this CBO non partisan, but finally buckled under political pressure when he agreed not to count the unfunded $247 billion the House was adding to Medicare in a separate bill to prevent a mandated cut in reimbursements to doctors as a part of the cost of HR 3200.

It wasn't counted because it wasn't part of the bill. You're mad because he didn't cook the numbers to meet with your politics. He was correct to not include the "doctor's fix" numbers in the cost of the bill. The "doctor's fix" has nothing to do with the provisions in HR 3200 or any other bill under consideration. It has to do with a systematic underpayment to doctors written into law in the 1990s.

 

[saveliberty]

CBO isn't staffed with Obama appointees. So, dodge fail.

No, with Pelosi appointees. Each Congress (House) appoints its own director of CBO. However, one must say that Elmendorf did initially try to keep this CBO non partisan, but finally buckled under political pressure when he agreed not to count the unfunded $247 billion the House was adding to Medicare in a separate bill to prevent a mandated cut in reimbursements to doctors as a part of the cost of HR 3200.

It wasn't counted because it wasn't part of the bill. You're mad because he didn't cook the numbers to meet with your politics. He was correct to not include the "doctor's fix" numbers in the cost of the bill. The "doctor's fix" has nothing to do with the provisions in HR 3200 or any other bill under consideration. It has to do with a systematic underpayment to doctors written into law in the 1990s.

Compartmentalizing health care costs doesn't make the cost less Polk. They certainly are connected. Further, it seems they split those costs out of the House bill at one point. So even some of the Democrats thought it should be in there at one point.

 

[Polk]

No, with Pelosi appointees. Each Congress (House) appoints its own director of CBO. However, one must say that Elmendorf did initially try to keep this CBO non partisan, but finally buckled under political pressure when he agreed not to count the unfunded $247 billion the House was adding to Medicare in a separate bill to prevent a mandated cut in reimbursements to doctors as a part of the cost of HR 3200.

It wasn't counted because it wasn't part of the bill. You're mad because he didn't cook the numbers to meet with your politics. He was correct to not include the "doctor's fix" numbers in the cost of the bill. The "doctor's fix" has nothing to do with the provisions in HR 3200 or any other bill under consideration. It has to do with a systematic underpayment to doctors written into law in the 1990s.

Compartmentalizing health care costs doesn't make the cost less Polk. They certainly are connected. Further, it seems they split those costs out of the House bill at one point. So even some of the Democrats thought it should be in there at one point.

They were going to roll it in because they knew it was going to be done anyway. To claim it's part of the cost of health care reform is dishonest. This patch has been passed every year it's been necessary to prevent a payment cut, by both Democratic and Republican-controlled Congresses. To say that "doctor's fix" provision is a part of the health reform package is dishonest. It's a related, but separate, issue that would have passed anyway even no health reform package had been introduced. To claim that it's being left out of the health reform figures to make the cost of the bill appear lower is highly deceptive.

 

[Thinman]

I'm confused. The dems want to just use Medicare for UHC, but Medicare is going bankrupt, so WTF happens when Medicare goes broke from the dems adding the poor MFs??

That means that those of us who paid into Medicare all our working lives get pimped. I don't know if the DC morons get what that would really mean.

I think you will soon see an increase in your medicare deduction on your paycheck. It's really the only way to pay for it.

 

[Polk]

I'm confused. The dems want to just use Medicare for UHC, but Medicare is going bankrupt, so WTF happens when Medicare goes broke from the dems adding the poor MFs??

That means that those of us who paid into Medicare all our working lives get pimped. I don't know if the DC morons get what that would really mean.

I think you will soon see an increase in your medicare deduction on your paycheck. It's really the only way to pay for it.

You realize that would have to be approved via legislation, don't you?

 

[Thinman]

I'm confused. The dems want to just use Medicare for UHC, but Medicare is going bankrupt, so WTF happens when Medicare goes broke from the dems adding the poor MFs??

That means that those of us who paid into Medicare all our working lives get pimped. I don't know if the DC morons get what that would really mean.

I think you will soon see an increase in your medicare deduction on your paycheck. It's really the only way to pay for it.

You realize that would have to be approved via legislation, don't you?

Yes, but I can't imagine a proposal not being passed in the face of bankruptcy. How many times has social security deductions been increased?

 

[Polk]

I think you will soon see an increase in your medicare deduction on your paycheck. It's really the only way to pay for it.

You realize that would have to be approved via legislation, don't you?

Yes, but I can't imagine a proposal not being passed in the face of bankruptcy. How many times has social security deductions been increased?

Other than a change in the 1980s, it hasn't been in recent memory. The Medicare tax is levied on all income already, while the Social Security tax is held constant in real terms (pegged to inflation).

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm confused. The dems want to just use Medicare for UHC, but Medicare is going bankrupt, so WTF happens when Medicare goes broke from the dems adding the poor MFs??

That means that those of us who paid into Medicare all our working lives get pimped. I don't know if the DC morons get what that would really mean.

Medicare is broke, social security is broke...the Dem's will have to raise the taxes on those 2 entitlement programs to keep them solvent....now they want to institute ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLAR NIGHTMARE that will be broke the minute it's implemented!!!!!!

 

[Murf76]

I'm confused. The dems want to just use Medicare for UHC, but Medicare is going bankrupt, so WTF happens when Medicare goes broke from the dems adding the poor MFs??

That means that those of us who paid into Medicare all our working lives get pimped. I don't know if the DC morons get what that would really mean.

I think you will soon see an increase in your medicare deduction on your paycheck. It's really the only way to pay for it.

You realize that would have to be approved via legislation, don't you?

Congress will have its hands pretty much tied by the executive branch if Obamacare passes. They'll end up as little more than a rubber stamp.

Excerpt:
To achieve the goal of a universal, single-payer health system, the White House must secure the power it needs by amending the Social Security Act to transfer pivotal controls from Congress to the executive branch. This transfer of power would ultimately give the President and the majority party, in this case the radical left Obama White House and Pelosi-Reid led progressive Democrats, the authority to frame and manipulate new policy, coverage options, and reimbursements, ultimately reshaping the future US health care system into a something unrecognizable in this country.

The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings. The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch. These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively. Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.

(cont...)
Big Government » Blog Archive » A White House Power Grab that Congress and America Doesn’t See

The problem we ALREADY have with entitlement programs is that it's almost impossible for elected officials to say 'no' to more spending and still keep their seats. So even if Congress retains it's budgetary responsibility to allocate money to Medicare... it loses control of how that money is spent. In essence, the executive branch pays out based on whatever arbitrary criteria it decides... and Congress either provides the money or faces the wrath of voters.

 

[blu]

This is the 2ND STORY to come out about this in the past 3 days. The first one, from MSNBC also, said that the programs costs were "unrealistic" and were going to significantly increase over the next 10 years.

America...we are being LIED TO and we are having unwanted legislation shoved down our throats by a Congress who could care less about the wellbeing of America.

I honestly think the backlash is coming because the program isn't 'government' enough. much of the left still wants single payer and this mix of private and government is seen as a cop out for them.

 

[Meister]

This is the 2ND STORY to come out about this in the past 3 days. The first one, from MSNBC also, said that the programs costs were "unrealistic" and were going to significantly increase over the next 10 years.

America...we are being LIED TO and we are having unwanted legislation shoved down our throats by a Congress who could care less about the wellbeing of America.

I honestly think the backlash is coming because the program isn't 'government' enough. much of the left still wants single payer and this mix of private and government is seen as a cop out for them.

Would you mind linking us to where you find that most of the left wants a single payer plan, blu.
You do realize that most of America (including the left) are happy with their healthcare coverage?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You realize that would have to be approved via legislation, don't you?

Yes, but I can't imagine a proposal not being passed in the face of bankruptcy. How many times has social security deductions been increased?

Other than a change in the 1980s, it hasn't been in recent memory. The Medicare tax is levied on all income already, while the Social Security tax is held constant in real terms (pegged to inflation).

Social Security deductions rise every single year...the cap this year was somewhere around $105,000...as I hit it around August.

 

[Polk]

Yes, but I can't imagine a proposal not being passed in the face of bankruptcy. How many times has social security deductions been increased?

Other than a change in the 1980s, it hasn't been in recent memory. The Medicare tax is levied on all income already, while the Social Security tax is held constant in real terms (pegged to inflation).

Social Security deductions rise every single year...the cap this year was somewhere around $105,000...as I hit it around August.

Rise in nominal terms. It's constant in real terms.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Other than a change in the 1980s, it hasn't been in recent memory. The Medicare tax is levied on all income already, while the Social Security tax is held constant in real terms (pegged to inflation).

Social Security deductions rise every single year...the cap this year was somewhere around $105,000...as I hit it around August.

Rise in nominal terms. It's constant in real terms.

Whatever clown...all I know is that I pay MORE AND MORE every year.....and to prove your theory...we will see what the cap is for 2010 since according to your lord and master Obama...we had ZERO INFLATION FOR THE 2009 FISCAL YEAR.

 

[Polk]

Social Security deductions rise every single year...the cap this year was somewhere around $105,000...as I hit it around August.

Rise in nominal terms. It's constant in real terms.

Whatever clown...all I know is that I pay MORE AND MORE every year.....and to prove your theory...we will see what the cap is for 2010 since according to your lord and master Obama...we had ZERO INFLATION FOR THE 2009 FISCAL YEAR.

The rate increases most years because there is some level of inflation is most years. Also, that there was no increase in 2009 isn't "according to... Obama", it's according to people who spend their career studying these things.