Time to start saying "NO"

[Care4all]

While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a tempo*rary stock market bubble.

I think the writer is WRONG on this point, which is a key point to making his own case....


We had a stock market bubble, larger than any other stock market bubble in our recent history and maybe ever in our history with the Mortgaged backed securities being sold and with homes being sold....the peak of this bubble began crashing the end of 2006 and by 2008 we lost over 10 trillion dollars in net worth of the stock market, which affected our 401k's, and the Home market...which affected the value of our homes that was borrowed on.

The home bubble was much larger than the Tech bubble so his excuses on why we could not reach the revenue level as a percentage of gdp that we had in 2000 doesn't make sense? At least I don't think it does?

From looking at what you have posted so far on this, it appears that keeping the Iraq war funding OUT OF THE BUDGET and as a supplementary to the budget, kept them from projecting their TRUE deficits out in to the future. Without iraq in the budget, they could spend their entire budget on other things....but then come year end, Iraq gets added in to their spending...giving them LARGER THAN EXPECTED deficits.

Congress played a game...along with the President, on temporarily hiding their spending by not having the cost of the wars in their projected budgets is what it shows now.

In addition to this, the 8 yrs under president Bush, Congress spent trillions in SS surplus monies...during this 8 year period, we collected more in SS surplus monies from the working class than any other 8 year period in our history, and all of it was used for what income taxes should have been paying....this is another big portion of our debt....the debt to ourselves for SS being used.

Yes we spent surplusses under all previous presidents, but during the Bush 8 year period, was the scheduled PEAK for collecting SS surplus, from here on out we get less and less SS surplusses to ROB....so it won't be as easy to appear one is balancing the budget or running lower deficits....

care

 

[namvet]

When is enough, enough? The deficit was projected to be 7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Now they just came out with new numbers and are saying the deficit is projected to be 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Last month alone we paid over a billion dollars on just the interest to China on the money we owe them. We are doing nothing to repay this huge debt except paying the interest on the loan. Congress is trying to pass a health care reform bill that will cost something over a trillion dollars. In the past few months we have spent a trillion dollars on things such as bank bailouts, Stimulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, and the list goes on and on. When is enough, enough? I think it's past time for the government to stop spending money like it's going out of style and begin to repay all of our debt before we add anything else to that debt. If we don't do this there is going to be some very high inflation in this country and the dollar isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on. What say you? Isn't this spending getting way out of hand?

behold !!! that's how democraps fix problems. throw money at it.

 

[jillian]

Yes if only my democrat representatives in the senate voted NO on the Iraq war maybe bush wouldn't have had the authority to start that war. At least kennedy voted no, kerry voted yes.

Bush was a social conservative only. Financially he was no conservative, he was the biggest defecit spender ever (Obama is on track to destroy Bush's hideous debt spending record). Hell Teddy Kennedy went along with Bush's education reform, why do you think that is....because Bush was very liberal in some of his positions such as education, medicare reform, and border security.



Fast and loose with my numbers, PRICELESS

I'm sorry that I have to explain this yet again...

the Iraq Resolution was NOt a blank check for the idiot to go to war... It was intended to be the leverage behind the DIPLOMATIC efforts which were required by the Resolution.... along with REPORTS to CONGRESS...

neither of which Bush did... .

I'm tired of the propaganda in that regard.

That said, they should have voted against it... but were afraid of being called "weak".

Idiots...

Bush wasn't any kind of conservative... he was a radical... and worse, he was incompetent.

did i see the conservatives complain?

nope....

And Kennedy voted for No Child Left Behind but didn't know it would be an unfunded mandate.... he got suckered.

Which is why you can't play nice with schoolyard bullies.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, I get your point. The numbers are fine and dandy and fully acceptable when you feel the prove your point, but they're junk when they don't.

I am still refusing to believe you're that stupid.

Lets try different approach. You're talking about cost of war in Iraq. What numbers are you using - money spent or projections?

I'm using the amount appropriated for it. Of course, we didn't have cost projections for the war (beyond Bush and company's claims it would pay for itself).

To discuss cost the war you're using the actual amount of money spent on war.

But when discussing cost of Medicare, you're denying tu use data for actual money spent on Medicare. Interesting.

Where on that page does it say Medicare Advantage costs less than Medicare? O wait, it doesn't. You made that up.

Have you logged in and checked what the actual cost is?

To read bit more about Medicare ant Parts, click here - Medicare Consumer Guide.

That site doesn't back up your claim that Medicare Advantage is cheaper to taxpayers than traditional Medicare. We can look at the history of Medicare Advantage payouts to see the program is more expensive. When the program was first created, very few entered in to it. Why? Because most insurance companies would not issue the policies because they would have taken a loss on each policy issued (since the amount the government gave the insurance companies was less than premiums for Medicare, hence why the program was billed as a savings measure). Insurance companies don't start offering Medicare Advantage policies on a wide scale until after payouts are increased to a higher amount than the Medicare baseline.

It doesn't?

In most cases, Part C is a lower-cost alternative to the Original Medicare Plan, and providers usually offer extra benefits and include prescription drug coverage (Part D).

Part C cost less if $0 premium (basic coverage) is selected (53% enrolled).
When other premiums (extra benefits not covered by Part A & B) are selected, it cost more government and the parient. That's the whole idea of Part D.

And you said "the program was billed as a savings measure". So what happen? Bad government estimate???

Now post the link for history of payouts.

 

[Care4all]

i don't want to leave the impression by my last post that we are not in fiscal, financial straights...because we are...and the time to say NO started a good half decade ago and continues now.

we are spending too much on too many unnecessary things...!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yes if only my democrat representatives in the senate voted NO on the Iraq war maybe bush wouldn't have had the authority to start that war. At least kennedy voted no, kerry voted yes.

Bush was a social conservative only. Financially he was no conservative, he was the biggest defecit spender ever (Obama is on track to destroy Bush's hideous debt spending record). Hell Teddy Kennedy went along with Bush's education reform, why do you think that is....because Bush was very liberal in some of his positions such as education, medicare reform, and border security.



Fast and loose with my numbers, PRICELESS

I'm sorry that I have to explain this yet again...

the Iraq Resolution was NOt a blank check for the idiot to go to war... It was intended to be the leverage behind the DIPLOMATIC efforts which were required by the Resolution.... along with REPORTS to CONGRESS...

neither of which Bush did... .

I'm tired of the propaganda in that regard.

That said, they should have voted against it... but were afraid of being called "weak".

Idiots...

Bush wasn't any kind of conservative... he was a radical... and worse, he was incompetent.

did i see the conservatives complain?

nope....

And Kennedy voted for No Child Left Behind but didn't know it would be an unfunded mandate.... he got suckered.

Which is why you can't play nice with schoolyard bullies.

I understand what you are saying but the resolution did give him the authority, which he used, to go to war in Iraq. That was not the intent of many who voted for it but if they read the whole resolution (which i now know our reps dont do) they would see they were voting that power into Bush's hands. The democrats who voted for it didn't even squack about it at the time he started the war. I didn't hear the dems complain either, not for over a year.

I did complain about the war because we were defecit spending to do it. And then cutting taxes with no other real plans to cut spending on top of that pissed me off. Bush pissed me off at almost every turn, and obama is not improving my view of the president's office.

I know where you are coming from with the points your making but i'm not "those conservatives" that you are thinking about. So when you say em to me i go .

 

[Polk]

I am still refusing to believe you're that stupid.

Lets try different approach. You're talking about cost of war in Iraq. What numbers are you using - money spent or projections?

I'm using the amount appropriated for it. Of course, we didn't have cost projections for the war (beyond Bush and company's claims it would pay for itself).

To discuss cost the war you're using the actual amount of money spent on war.

But when discussing cost of Medicare, you're denying tu use data for actual money spent on Medicare. Interesting.

Uhh... we were discussing the health care bill. Since the bill hasn't been passed yet, where are these "actual cost" figures coming from?

That site doesn't back up your claim that Medicare Advantage is cheaper to taxpayers than traditional Medicare. We can look at the history of Medicare Advantage payouts to see the program is more expensive. When the program was first created, very few entered in to it. Why? Because most insurance companies would not issue the policies because they would have taken a loss on each policy issued (since the amount the government gave the insurance companies was less than premiums for Medicare, hence why the program was billed as a savings measure). Insurance companies don't start offering Medicare Advantage policies on a wide scale until after payouts are increased to a higher amount than the Medicare baseline.

It doesn't?

In most cases, Part C is a lower-cost alternative to the Original Medicare Plan, and providers usually offer extra benefits and include prescription drug coverage (Part D).

Part C cost less if $0 premium (basic coverage) is selected (53% enrolled).
When other premiums (extra benefits not covered by Part A & B) are selected, it cost more government and the parient. That's the whole idea of Part D.

And you said "the program was billed as a savings measure". So what happen? Bad government estimate???

Now post the link for history of payouts.

First, the quote you posted wasn't on the page you linked to (it was on another page linked to on the page). Second, that's referring to a lower out-of-pocket cost to the beneficiary, not to a lower program cost. And even that's not true.

 

[EriktheRed]

Time to start saying "NO"

Well, what the fuck have the GOoPers been doing the last seven months, then???

 

[Polk]

Many private plans advertise extra benefits and low costs. But in a report to be issued Thursday, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, says that many people in private plans face higher costs for home health care, nursing homes and some hospital stays.

About one-fifth of the 44 million Medicare beneficiaries — 9 million people — are in private plans, known as Medicare Advantage plans.

The report says, “Medicare spends more per beneficiary in Medicare Advantage than it does for beneficiaries in the original Medicare fee-for-service program, at an estimated additional cost to Medicare of $54 billion from 2009 through 2012.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/washington/28medicare.html?_r=1

Check.

 

[Ame®icano]

Many private plans advertise extra benefits and low costs. But in a report to be issued Thursday, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, says that many people in private plans face higher costs for home health care, nursing homes and some hospital stays.

About one-fifth of the 44 million Medicare beneficiaries — 9 million people — are in private plans, known as Medicare Advantage plans.

The report says, “Medicare spends more per beneficiary in Medicare Advantage than it does for beneficiaries in the original Medicare fee-for-service program, at an estimated additional cost to Medicare of $54 billion from 2009 through 2012.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/washington/28medicare.html?_r=1

Check.

You're still talking about estimates. Why don't you show actual payouts?

 

[Ame®icano]

I red article from the link you provided again and found these quotes.

Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, said, “Medicare overpayments fatten company profits, even as many seniors face higher costs in private plans than they would in traditional Medicare.”

What Pete Stark haven't and wouldn't said is what "overpayment actually is. In order to find out, you need to know where roots of Medicare Advantage plan are. As much I red here on the message board, most of leftists blame Bush for Medicare expansion. Well, that is the type of uninformed crap that makes the whole debate about health care insurance reform pretty challenging.

PL 105-33 (with a short title of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) was signed into law by Bill Clinton in August of 1997. It was the reconciliation of HR2015 sponsored by Kasich (OH). Title IV of this law created the Medicare +Choice option. If you understood the funding you would find that Medicare Advantage provides improved level of benefits, coordination of care, drug benefits without donuts, Part B, and the premiums are paid by the Feds on behalf of the elderly who choose this approach to managing their health care. The insurers are at risk for utilization. This is not a subsidy, it is premiums paid by the government on behalf of Medicare enrollees to access a comprehensive private managed care system, a system of care that actually works.

In other words, Medicare Advantage was a Clinton-era experiment to privatize Medicare. The government would pay HMOs to take care of seniors instead of the old way of paying for individual services and doctors. To get this started, the government offered the HMOs the standard Medicare premium plus a 12% bonus. Most of democrats see this bonus as increasing the cost of Medicare and a giveaway to for-profit HMOs. They have introduced bills every year for the past decade to phase-out the bonus, but none have passed. The NY Times, just like in your link, periodically runs articles and editorials decrying Medicare Advantage.

No elderly can be denied (based on medical criteria) access to these programs. It actually works. But, it is the one area which will be eliminated, by "saving" 177 billion (not 500 billion) which really means it will be shifted to the elderly who now will end up in the Medicare fee-for-service system (paying Part B and Part D premiums and copays.

So much about Obama promise that everyone who like their existing insurance will be able to keep it. Tell that to 10.2 million insured with Medicare Advantage. If Obama get read of MA, there will be nothing standing in the way to his ultimate goal of putting private insurances out of business and government run, single payer insurance.

 

[jeffrockit]

If we fix the healthcare system, we will save money. Well not the frigging CEOs, but hell they can retire on what they have.

If you don't fix it now, you will be paying more in premiums in a short time than the Euro peeings pay now in taxes for their socialized healthcare.

We need and can fix the healthcare system...we just don't need the govt to run it. There have been suggestions as to how to make this happen. Tort reform, the ability to buy insurance across state lines, healthcare savings accounts and etc. Unfortunately those are not very popular suggestions for the "vote buying" politicians.
Anyone who thinks that the politicians are doing this to help the people, has not paid attention to past and present politicians and their power hungry ways. This is noting more than a control issue if we allow them to pass a bill as bad as this one.