How long can republicans keep up the charade?

[Charles Stucker]

How long do you think congressional republicans can keep up the charade that they might actually support the "right" healthcare reform bill?

Since the "Right" reform would be for the government to cancel all Medifraud (TM) programs (at the same time as Socialist Security (TM)) I can guarantee they will never see the chance until the Democrats and their socialist agenda are out of offic.

 

[uscitizen]

Anyone that cancels SS and Medicare are doomed.

 

[Ravi]

Until the end of time.

 

[DiamondDave]

Anyone that cancels SS and Medicare are doomed.

What about those that would/might put a plan in place to phase it out while not cutting contributors that gave or have been giving to it all along?

Now cutting medicaid... I think that could be accomplished... getting people off that who are not wards of the state

 

[uscitizen]

Anyone that cancels SS and Medicare are doomed.

What about those that would/might put a plan in place to phase it out while not cutting contributors that gave or have been giving to it all along?

Now cutting medicaid... I think that could be accomplished... getting people off that who are not wards of the state

Yep lets cut off the medical care to the poorest so we can let the richest keep more money.

 

[WillowTree]

How long do you think congressional republicans can keep up the charade that they might actually support the "right" healthcare reform bill?

It's pretty clear that they don't want any healthcare reform legislation. And I don't criticize them on that since I'm not sure I want it either. But for political reasons they're unwilling to just come right out and say they don't want it. And so they've been keeping this charade going that seems to get more and more transparent with every passing day.

So, how long can they keep it up?

Talking points? What else ya got?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Why is there such a resistence to opening coverage purchase across state lines? Has anyone heard a good answer? I don't understand why this isn't a quick and easy way to lower costs and improve coverage to more Americans through good ol' fashioned competition.

10th Ammendment and legal issues. It basically comes down to the fact the States legally should be able to regulate insurance inside state lines to protect the consumer and the Fed doesn't have the authority to force the States to give that up.

I'm actually very skeptical of this solution myself. There's a reason that credit card companies are so choosey about where they base their operations. They intentionally look for states that have regulatory and legal options that give them the most advantage over you. Opening up insurance across state lines means that insurers would flee for States where the legal code would make it very difficult for the insured to prove malfeasance or fraud.

You might gain lower costs, but you'd increase the instances of insurance companies denying legal claims using shady/illegal methods and increase the odds they'd be able to fight off justifiable lawsuits in court.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Yep lets cut off the medical care to the poorest so we can let the richest keep more money.

Yep lets tax everyone 100% so they can get their basic necessities from the government.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep lets cut off the medical care to the poorest so we can let the richest keep more money.

Yep lets tax everyone 100% so they can get their basic necessities from the government.

Why stop at 100%?

 

[WillowTree]

Anyone that cancels SS and Medicare are doomed.

What about those that would/might put a plan in place to phase it out while not cutting contributors that gave or have been giving to it all along?

Now cutting medicaid... I think that could be accomplished... getting people off that who are not wards of the state

Yep lets cut off the medical care to the poorest so we can let the richest keep more money.

Well, Seniors (medicare beneficiaries) have worked the longest, the hardest and paid in the most to the system. They also have greater need of care,, now why would you let them work all their lives and pay into the system and them steal 500 billion dollars of their funds and give that to someone else? I just don't see any compassion from the libruls,, newp,, none at all.

 

[American Horse]

How long do you think congressional republicans can keep up the charade that they might actually support the "right" healthcare reform bill?

It's pretty clear that they don't want any healthcare reform legislation. And I don't criticize them on that since I'm not sure I want it either. But for political reasons they're unwilling to just come right out and say they don't want it. And so they've been keeping this charade going that seems to get more and more transparent with every passing day.

So, how long can they keep it up?

That's your assumption, and it does not do justice to the Rs. They have always been willing to work on healthcare issues, and those of us who pay attention know what those are because they are pretty much standard issue.

All the innovative changes to our dispensation of healthcare have come from Rs; MSAs, HSAs, Part D drug benefit, Community Clinics. All of these promote competition by letting people spend their own money, which is the only way of getting away from the separation that now exists between the customer and the provider. Each of these solutions is complex and includes things like availability of high deductible insurance policies, tax incentives, etc; things which Ds oppose.

But more to the point the Ds ADAMANTLY opposed each of these because they force free market solutions into the delivery of healthcare and drugs which they oppose because they tend to thwart their grand goal of a single payer full government take-over of health-care in this country. The Rs were only able to pass MSAs by limiting them to 700,000 in total number. Why was that? They had to make deals like that to even stop filibuster. What was the rational of the Ds? That people would make bad decisions about deductibles and due to the consequences to themselves, regret those decisions

We know that the Rs never had anything close to a filibuster proof US Senate (like the Ds have).

What the Rs should be blamed most for is their not being willing to keep the fight up for the things they believe in; But we should excuse that at least partly, since they have never been able to get any favorable publicity for their "issues" (it's as if they don't have ANY ideas) - the President's Summit being the lone exception for decades. The Rs are eventually forced to move on to more pressing legislation or be seen as bogged down and doing nothing. And every solution they offer is viewed through the filter of a negatively biased media.

What the Summit showed was that MOST people out in the country were not even aware that the Rs had any ideas at all, much less good ideas that anyone can see would help in all aspects.

Consider that the Ds get away with saying that tort reform would only lower the cost of medical care by a percentage point or two, and they use the CBO as support for their claim. But the CBO never uses dynamic scoring (incentives being another word) so that the multiplicity of tangential tests - practice of defensive medicine - that are ordered by doctors to defend themselves from possible lawsuits never show up in the CBO numbers.

The thing is, we can never ever have a discussion of the issues in this country so long as we have a media that so completely agrees with one side of the debate. The media can't help themselves because they can't see their own destructive filter. The American public cannot get a full and balanced view of issues because of that filter.

We are seeing a slow breakdown in the dam that holds back information from the voting public. But pay attention to the Sunday news programs, and count the panel's make-up of left to right to get an assessment of where we stand. Sunday's Meet the press had liberal media people (Katty Kay, Marc H. Morial (Urban League), Ron Brownstein), and two House members, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz VS Eric Cantor. W-S was permitted to interrupt EC to what-ever (never called on it by David Gregory) extent she wanted, throwing up a barrage of rhetoric, which Cantor met with substance. He never allowing himself to descend into the same tactic; he never once interrupted her, while she never relented.

We can never have an informed debate in this country until we force a media to be willing to offer up the arguments of both sides, through their best spokes-people unfiltered by their own bias, even in something as basic as calling rude interruptions rude interruptions. (Problem is one side only knows rudeness)

 

[rdean]

How long do you think congressional republicans can keep up the charade that they might actually support the "right" healthcare reform bill?

It's pretty clear that they don't want any healthcare reform legislation. And I don't criticize them on that since I'm not sure I want it either. But for political reasons they're unwilling to just come right out and say they don't want it. And so they've been keeping this charade going that seems to get more and more transparent with every passing day.

So, how long can they keep it up?

Health care companies made 12 billion profit last year, mainly by cutting 2.7 million Americans. They are death panels that stand between doctors and patients. Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy.

I don't want them to change either. I think their profit should be 30 billion. And a CEO who makes a 73 million dollar bonus? Good for him. Being able to squeeze all that money out of insurance policies. I wonder how many it took to make 73 million? Oh man, what a guy. I wish I were him.

 

[uscitizen]

500 billion? We now owe SS in excess of 2 trillion.
There lies the rub.

And the primary reason we owe SS all that money is in two parts.
1. Reagan raised SS withholding making surplus money available.
2. Congress cannot stand to see any money unspent.

 

[American Horse]

500 billion? We now owe SS in excess of 2 trillion.
There lies the rub.

As of what date in the future? When do the SS funds which were used to purchase Treasury notes run out? what is the status at the present moment?

 

[DE3]

Why is there such a resistence to opening coverage purchase across state lines? Has anyone heard a good answer? I don't understand why this isn't a quick and easy way to lower costs and improve coverage to more Americans through good ol' fashioned competition.

The Senate bill does this, but with a national standard of coverage set.

There is nothing that keeps any of the 1300 or so health insurance companies from offering policies in any state they choose.

Most states have a minimum standard of coverage that must be met in order to sell policies within its jurisdiction. Over the years the big companies have shown to be more competitive just because of sheer ability to spread their risk over a larger pool of people. A smaller company coming in would have a tough time competing because of the smaller number of people it insures, thus increasing its risk potential. The free market has led to in many cases psuedo monopolies i each state. Meaning that in many states you have 1-3 insurance companies to choose from.

The argument against free reign selling of policies across state lines is that the people who consider themselves healthy will flock to lower cost plans that offer less coverage. this leaves the more sickly people paying higher premiums because the risk pool is diminished in policies they need.

Secondly, in terms of these supposedly healthy people, we know that many people will abandon quality for price. Just look at Wal-Mart. What happens when this "healthy person" becomes sick with something his low priced policy doesn't cover? He places the cost burden on hospitals, Dr.'s, federal, state, and local governments. Which means in the end it doesn't accomplish anything in terms of costs.

There has to be a minimum standard. Then let's allow all 1300 companies to compete as they so choose. If there is one minimum standard then companies can pick and choose areas where they want to compete far easier, just like what happens in home insurance and auto insurance.

 

[uscitizen]

500 billion? We now owe SS in excess of 2 trillion.
There lies the rub.

As of what date in the future? When do the SS funds which were used to purchase Treasury notes run out? what is the status at the present moment?

I think we start drawing against the surplus in less than 10 years and under current projections the surplus should last till 2060 or so.


But that surplus has to be paid back out of general funds.
That is gonna hurt.

But what does it matter the USA will fail before 2060 anyway.
And the world is supposed to end in 2012.

 

[American Horse]

500 billion? We now owe SS in excess of 2 trillion.
There lies the rub.

As of what date in the future? When do the SS funds which were used to purchase Treasury notes run out? what is the status at the present moment?

I think we start drawing against the surplus in less than 10 years and under current projections the surplus should last till 2060 or so.


But that surplus has to be paid back out of general funds.
That is gonna hurt.

But what does it matter the USA will fail before 2060 anyway.
And the world is supposed to end in 2012.

THANK YOU!
The money has been borrowed from SS. It has to be payed back, because as we know, 2012 is only a wet dream for certain true believers among us.

 

[DiamondDave]

Anyone that cancels SS and Medicare are doomed.

What about those that would/might put a plan in place to phase it out while not cutting contributors that gave or have been giving to it all along?

Now cutting medicaid... I think that could be accomplished... getting people off that who are not wards of the state

Yep lets cut off the medical care to the poorest so we can let the richest keep more money.

yep.. let's continue wealth redistribution and giving from taxpayers to those who don't take care of themselves for their own personal needs

 

[uscitizen]

If the feds send me a check for $158,500 I will let them off the hook for MY SS. That is what has been paid into my account as of the first of the year.
And for around 36k I will let them off the hook for Medicare as well.
I can buy good ins for the rest of my life with 36K.

 

[boedicca]

I think we start drawing against the surplus in less than 10 years and under current projections the surplus should last till 2060 or so.


But that surplus has to be paid back out of general funds.
That is gonna hurt.

But what does it matter the USA will fail before 2060 anyway.
And the world is supposed to end in 2012.

Well, hopefully the Obama Era will end in 2012.

It's important to note that in 1945, there were 42 taxpayers per beneficiary - we are now around 3:1. Unless we have a population explosion caused by increased birth rates per adult woman (highly unlikely), that ratio is projected to fall to 2.2:1 in 20 years.

Essentially, every taxpayer will be supporting two old people. In past generations, we'd be taking care of our own parents. Instead, we'll be taking care two strangers who have virtually enslaved us via the big hand of government.