Sebelius: Insurers Will Be Punished For Telling The Truth

[boedicca]

MaggieMoron

I'm referring to the smart Friedman, Milton - hardly a surprise that you wouldn't think of him you sad sack of socialist soap scum.

You are repetitive and boring. Here's something to keep you busy.

How to keep an idiot busy

 

[MaggieMae]

Hahahahah!!!! Even Obama is talking down ObamaCare:

If you watched President Obama’s press conference today, you probably noticed the fumbling and stumbling that occurred while trying to answer Jake Tapper‘s question about yesterday’s health care report, which shows that costs will rise under Obamacare, not fall. If you didn’t see the answer, I’ve included it below. Here is Tapper’s question:

On health care reform, this is six months since health care passed. You pledged, A, that you would bend the cost curve, and, B, that Democrats would be able to campaign on this. And CMS reported yesterday that the cost curve is actually bending up: from 6.1 percent to 6.3 percent post-health care legislation. And the only Democrats I’ve seen talking about health care legislation are running TV ads saying that they voted against it.

The president begins his health care backpedal | The Blaze


Obama's response is in the CNN video clip at the link. He's making excuses already.

Obviously he has to choose his words carefully; otherwise the people like you are off and running. He still doesn't have a crystal ball, dear. The entire economy isn't doing as well as he projected, and that includes constant rising health costs which (duh...) tend to result in rising costs of proposed legislation.

 

[boedicca]

He has to choose his words carefully because he's been caught lying. It's always much more difficult to spin a web of lies than it is to tell the truth - as you demonstrate on a constant basis.

 

[MaggieMae]

You are a nasty piece of work.
[*snicker*]
Beck is an infotainer. Speculating on what his "only in your fantasy world" administration would do bears nothing on reality. Really, given your obsession, your should get some professional help. He is a married man.

I'm obsessed? You're like a rabid dog with its dripping fangs still gnawing on a chewed up bone. Try re-reading some of the insults you make before you hit "submit," hypocrite.

Really? I never mention Beck other than to call you rabid Moonbats on your obsession.

And speaking of being a hypocrite, here is something at your level:

I am rubber
You are glue
Everything you say
Bounce off me
And sticks to you

Leaving sandbox now. Go pick on some other unsuspecting victim, freak.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He has to choose his words carefully because he's been caught lying. It's always much more difficult to spin a web of lies than it is to tell the truth - as you demonstrate on a constant basis.

No, Boedicca, you and your ilk have been caught repeatedly lying, not the President.

 

[Trajan]

so the cost is not over 900 billion...humm I have a March source that says 940 billion and that didn't not take into account the doctor fox....?And a May source that says over a trillion....an MSM source at that...

The supposed "lie" is that Obama said in his September 2009 address to Congress that the reform package he was proposing would "cost around $900 billion over 10 years." Cost estimates for H.R. 3590, which became law, are somewhat beside that point. The President offered proposals estimated to cost ~$900 billion. The Senate--with tweaks from the House--passed a bill estimated to cost $940.

ah so we are at 940B, we are mking progress...the doctor fix...? and the trillion dollar estimate?

Oh and everything the CBO estimates is just that, if the economy does not follow the trajectory obama said at the time it would, any discretionary spending gets more expensive, no matter what they estimate, n'est–ce pa?

It sounds like you're confusing mandatory and discretionary spending.

in the end meaningless, a distinction with no practical difference; any shortfall in gov. revenue as to be made up, if they want to trim descrt. spending that means a fight as to who no longer gets what (especially since obama has jacked up descrt. spending to levels here to fore unseen), if even they are given a flat budget that will create the usual caterwauling, if increases is not in the offing, any step back will become politically landlocked.


since mandatory spending is based largely on demographics, well, the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter. You appear to want to see this in a vacuum or compartmentalized, he jacked discretionary spending, if he doesn't reduce that, then he has to solve for mandatory spending or we run, ta da, a deficit...

So he has crafted HC on a wing and prayer, a solvency based on the gov. cutting expenses by institutional 'efficiency' standards ( we have an unproven, in fact horrible record in that regard and we all know it) and care, savings through oversight and managing by fiat insurance co's costs structure, making medicare more efficient, realizing savings, and a mandate.

And promises; that adding 30 million new customers will not degrade present care, will not cost us anymore on a personal or national level. Do you really wonder why they are not speaking of this plan on the stump?

It flys in the face of history and common sense.

Come now.




Q-
Why did the they front load with taxes regulatory fees etc. and back load the benefits? load the bill? Answer; because as I alluded to earlier they are betting on the future. And every month that goes by that gdp and tax revenue is stagnant, is another 10 B or so billion you can add on the back end.

Because having a dialogue about this in any meaningful way has become nearly impossible, I presume. Even on a discussion forum like this.

I see, thats political speak for; we are incapable of articulating our plan in terms people understand. And that has become "nearly impossible", is right, because they really don't understand themselves what they put together. See above.

The comparison is to coverage offered in the individual market now.

so; if I pay 100 a month to cover me and my wife, the same plan for a subsidized individual will cost them 40?

All plans above the threshold begin paying taxes on the portion of the plan above the threshold starting in 2018.

why 2018?


exit question- who pays to cover my daughter for the next 3 years?

 

[boedicca]

I'm obsessed? You're like a rabid dog with its dripping fangs still gnawing on a chewed up bone. Try re-reading some of the insults you make before you hit "submit," hypocrite.

Really? I never mention Beck other than to call you rabid Moonbats on your obsession.

And speaking of being a hypocrite, here is something at your level:

I am rubber
You are glue
Everything you say
Bounce off me
And sticks to you

Leaving sandbox now. Go pick on some other unsuspecting victim, freak.

Finally! Something you understand.

Here's another intellectually appropriate challenge for you:

How to keep an idiot busy

 

[Greenbeard]

ah so we are at 940B, we are mking progress...the doctor fix...? and the trillion dollar estimate?

The doc fix is not associated with health reform (broadly speaking, "health reform" refers to three structural changes 1) the creation of health insurance exchanges and extension of means-tested tax credits to purchasers in those exchanges, 2) the expansion of Medicaid programs and simplification of their eligibility requirements, and 3) the introduction of de facto employer mandate for large enough businesses and introduction of tax credits for small businesses who choose to provide health insurance to employees).

The SGR update you're talking about is a relic of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and has been a political and policy imperative since 2003. How can you attribute spending that began in 2003 to a law passed in 2010?

As for your trillion dollar estimate, you'll have to be more specific and link me to whatever you're referring to.

Q-
Why did the they front load with taxes regulatory fees etc. and back load the benefits?

They didn't. Benefits (spending) and savings/revenues track each other fairly closely in the first decade:

so; if I pay 100 a month to cover me and my wife, the same plan for a subsidized individual will cost them 40?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you have an employer-sponsored plan, you've been subsidized via the tax exclusion all along--that's the reason the excise tax exists and that's exactly the point Elmendorf was making in the article linked to by that Reason piece, which I have now quoted several times:

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy" that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages.​

Under the law, people in the non-group market (specifically, the exchanges) will be eligible for tax credits if their income falls below 400% of the poverty line. That subsidy, however, will not be limitless--it has an upper limit. At present, your group plan's subsidy doesn't have a limit; there's no point at which it stops. In 2018 when the excise tax goes into effect, that will no longer be true.

Or are you saying you buy in the individual market right now? Otherwise your question doesn't make sense.

why 2018?

I don't know how the specific year was chosen.

exit question- who pays to cover my daughter for the next 3 years?

That depends on where your daughter is getting her insurance: is it through work, the individual market, Medicaid, school, you?

 

[boedicca]

That chart only looks the way it does because they steal money from Medicare and assume grossly optimistic GDP growth rates and low levels of health care services usage.

 

[Trajan]

ah so we are at 940B, we are mking progress...the doctor fix...? and the trillion dollar estimate?

The doc fix is not associated with health reform

dude please. now you're being intellectually dishonest.

why 2018?

I don't know how the specific year was chosen.

oh please huh?

why not 2014?

exit question- who pays to cover my daughter for the next 3 years?

That depends on where your daughter is getting her insurance: is it through work, the individual market, Medicaid, school, you?

she not presently on my plan, shes 23....
she has none right now. so she gets covered to 26 by whom and what? or doesn't she?

IF she were on my plan, how is that cost defrayed to me?

 

[Greenbeard]

That chart only looks the way it does because they steal money from Medicare and assume grossly optimistic GDP growth rates and low levels of health care services usage.

What are the assumed utilization rates? And GDP growth rates?

And how do you think that money is "stolen" from Medicare?

 

[boedicca]

If taking over $500B of Medicare taxes is part of health care equation, the doc fix for Medicare is most certainly part of it as well.

Just sayin'.

 

[Greenbeard]

dude please. now you're being intellectually dishonest.

Do you know what the SGR fix is supposed to fix?

she not presently on my plan, shes 23....
she has none right now. so she gets covered to 26 by whom and what? or doesn't she?

IF she were on my plan, how is that cost defrayed to me?

I don't know the details of your plan. If your plan has or institutes a tiered system such that your premium varies by categories like "self-only, self-plus-one, self-plus-two, and self-plus-three-or-more," then your family bears the primary cost. If not, it'll be shared with the rest of your risk pool.

 

[boedicca]

That chart only looks the way it does because they steal money from Medicare and assume grossly optimistic GDP growth rates and low levels of health care services usage.

What are the assumed utilization rates? And GDP growth rates?

And how do you think that money is "stolen" from Medicare?

The utilization rate is implicit. They assume prices (not costs for coverage), and assume that adding 30M people will reduce spending per person. There is nothing in this that would enable utilization to increase while dramatically lowering prices (again, their proxy for costs).

In the Real World, when people are given something for free, they use more of it.

Here you go on GDP growth assumptions. Note that Q2 2010 was 1.6%.

CBO’s Economic Projections for 2009 to 2019

There is no way GDP growth is going to be nearly 3% this year or over 4% in 2011 and 2013.

The health care reform bill assumed close to $500B of reductions in Medicare, and transfers that funding to ObamaCare.

The $1.05 trillion House health care reform legislation includes net cuts to Medicare, which would save $472.8 billion, or 39 percent of the bill’s 10-year cost, and a 5.4 percent surtax on high-income individuals, which would generate $460.5 billion, or 38 percent of the bill’s cost, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation’s review of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis.

Health care reform plans funded by new major tax, Medicare spending cuts - The Hill's Congress Blog


The Medicare cuts were a critical assumption to cook the books on the CBO score.

 

[Trajan]

They didn't. Benefits (spending) and savings/revenues track each other fairly closely in the first decade:

...wtf are you jerking me around?


thats called back-loading Ace, notice the preponderance of red to blue in the first 4 years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't believe everything you read, especially when it's poorly researched.

Too bad for you Reason Magazine is always well researched.

Any kind of "research" (i.e., the 7 points listed) is completely speculative at this point.

Purely speculative?

The fact that Obama lied about what the bill is doing is speculative?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch is not just a sound bite, it is a fact of life.

Nobody's looking for it to be "free." Just fair to those caught in the middle of skyrocketing health care and no way to pay for it. It's a fucking no brainer.

Somebody HAS to pay for it, why shouldn't it be the people that use it, and not the people that do not?

This is the question that no one who supports the law has ever been able to answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama succeeded in getting a healthcare plan passed that no one, but the uninsured will like. Even the uninsured are probably going to reject it for cost reasons. So cobbled up that he will continue to receive widespread criticism until it is repealed.

The uninsured aren't going to like it either. All this means is that it will be more difficult than it is now to get an appointment as there is nothing in the plan that will increase the supply of doctors.

Why wouldn't the trend to become a doctor increase in the first place? If more people are going to be able to actually see a doctor instead of an ER nurse, what better incentive than the ol' "supply and demand" rule here?

I also still have faith in the medical profession's basic ethics. I don't see many doctors turning away people who can now make appointments just for preventive care (that's a quick in and out, and a medical practice could set up a separate staff to do that). I also continue to hear horror stories about doctors turning away new Medicare patients, but I believe if they are turning away "new" patients, it's because their practice is already overwhelmed. I haven't read about any doctor in my vicinity (nor even in the entire state) who has openly declared he/she would stop taking government-assisted patients. "First Do No Harm" still means a LOT to most devoted folks in the medical profession.

But then I still have a lot of faith in just about everything America does for its people as having noble intents, and that in the end, we usually get it right (correct) in spite of the painful process.

How are we going to do that? Pass a law that everyone who wants to be a doctor can do so once he graduates from high school?

Supply and demand works by driving up prices to keep the demand in line with the supply. More doctors would result in lower prices, which curtails the number of doctors.

What you are advocating works just the opposite. You want to cut prices and increase demand for doctors. That WILL NOT work.

 

[Trajan]

dude please. now you're being intellectually dishonest.

Do you know what the SGR fix is supposed to fix?

yes but you know what, don't bother....we are done here.

she not presently on my plan, shes 23....
she has none right now. so she gets covered to 26 by whom and what? or doesn't she?

IF she were on my plan, how is that cost defrayed to me?

I don't know the details of your plan. If your plan has or institutes a tiered system such that your premium varies by categories like "self-only, self-plus-one, self-plus-two, and self-plus-three-or-more," then your family bears the primary cost. If not, it'll be shared with the rest of your risk pool.[/QUOTE]


you see this is why neither the pols or you for that matter have any real credibility on this issue, I will say your a tad smoother than them but not by much, each and every time you get asked a question whose answer you don't wish to provide, this is what we get treated too.

I have asked 3 times now in the last 5 pages of this thread - who pays for my daughter new coverage......and your answer after all the nonsense and filler is well;

then your family bears the primary cost. If not, it'll be shared with the rest of your risk pool

yea no kidding you could have avoided the previous waste of time, the misdirection and obfuscation and just answered the question the first time I aksed it. This is getting old.



Oh and we are going to have a debate now about what front loading is, as opposed to back loading AND the very obvious political reasons for such? ...or should we revisit the fact that be it discretionary or mandatory spending, if the gov. is over obligated there is little real practical difference, the TAXPAYER has now been even further burdended.

And Obama care will unless you are really really that out of it, I mean really, you must know all of this forecasting 10 years into the future is complete horsehockey, the projections are already going south.

Your willful and convenient ignorance is getting a little to much to take.

You didn't answer straight up because the answer is inconvenient , we the tax payer will pay that is me you boedicca anyone reading this that pays net taxes.....you KNEW and know what I was asking.

I don't know what boiler room rah rah HC organization or front you work/shill or volunteer for , but its screamingly obvious by now. I have seen you trolling the same topic(s), providing the same answers in the same style on several forums boss. Peace out.

 

[boedicca]

They didn't. Benefits (spending) and savings/revenues track each other fairly closely in the first decade:

...wtf are you jerking me around?


thats called back-loading Ace, notice the preponderance of red to blue in the first 4 years?

And those front loaded revenues for 2011 through 2013 assume real GDP growth in excess of 4%. In reality, we are going to struggle to get above the 2%s, which combined with continuing high unemployment, will cause tax receipts to be lower than projected.