A non partisan view of the healthcare bill...

[Zoom-boing]

This health care takeover will end like every other government run program, underestimated in cost and overbloated with government with joe the taxpayer getting the shaft, but good.

The stimuless was to create jobs and that worked great soooo . . . . they passed a jobs bill to create jobs. Why would they do that if the stimuless is creating jobs and only 1/3 of the money has been spent? Without the stimuless unemployment would go well over the 8.5% but the stimuless would certainly curb that. Check. The first housing fix would help foreclosed on homeowners and it worked great, which is why they're doing another fix. That's the reason for the second fix, right?

How's Medicare doing? How's Medicare's costs compared to the estimates? This is what this fuckedup takeover will be like.

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion.vi The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early „70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”vii

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. viii Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.ix

Read the rest here, it's only 4 pages long. http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

How's Amtrak? How's . . . anything the government gets its hands on? Please folks, if you really believe that this takeover is going to fix anything you are touched. Go see a doc to help you, you can't get turned down.

This was published on March 20, 2010.

WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama administration’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Republican leaders Saturday that the “very tight time frame” and “complexity” of the Democrats’ health spending bill would prevent them from fully analyzing the costs and efficacy of the bill before the House voted on the legislation. The letter was in response to a request from House and Senate Republicans.

The Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, wrote: “In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.”

Foster and his staff analyzed the Senate-passed bill and determined that it bent the cost curve up, estimating in a January 8 report that national health expenditures would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion, and that the additional demand for health services “could be difficult to meet” and “could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.” Foster, in his letter today, expects the new health spending bill to be “generally similar.”

Republican.Senate.Gov - Blogs

 

[Ravi]

This is not a nonpartisan article.

For example, what Krugman actually said was:

There is, as always, a tunnel at the end of the tunnel: we’ll spend years if not decades fixing this thing. But kudos to all involved, with special praise for Nancy Pelosi, who is now a Speaker for the ages.

Also, elsewhere in the Economist we find this opinion piece that supports health care reform.

American health-care reform: Pass the bill | The Economist

This is pretty funny. Pair the above with this quote from CG from elsewhere on the forum.

Nope, unless I see the quote, in context, so I know exactly what was said and in what context, then I don't believe jack shit. The reason I don't believe jack shit is because, time and again, people take one line or part of a comment and use it to score cheap political points. So, provide the quote, in context, or you lose.

She obviously does believe quotes out of context as long as they affirm her partisan view.

 

[midcan5]

The Economist is a very a good publication. One of my brothers watches no TV news or radio, but that is one of a few magazines he relies on for fair and balanced news. I also think BBC much better than most our media. But NPR and some CNN and lots of MSNBC is quite good too.

Back on topic, I agree with the central premise, but I also agree that something needed to be done and doing nothing was not an option for many reasons. Hopefully America will continue to elect progressive people to office, and improvements that are both cost effective and good for all people become part of the bill too. Progress comes slowly entrenched power likes the ripoffs of the present.


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

 

[California Girl]

This is not a nonpartisan article.

For example, what Krugman actually said was:

There is, as always, a tunnel at the end of the tunnel: we’ll spend years if not decades fixing this thing. But kudos to all involved, with special praise for Nancy Pelosi, who is now a Speaker for the ages.

Also, elsewhere in the Economist we find this opinion piece that supports health care reform.

American health-care reform: Pass the bill | The Economist

The "kudos" and high five to Nancy adds no information to the debate. It is a personal statement and not necessary to inform readers. See how that works.

The Economist is non partisan, it has run pieces both in support of and in criticism of, the healthcare bill. That's what non-partisan sources do. Of course, I wouldn't expect the partisans to understand that.

 

[California Girl]

This is not a nonpartisan article.

For example, what Krugman actually said was:

There is, as always, a tunnel at the end of the tunnel: we’ll spend years if not decades fixing this thing. But kudos to all involved, with special praise for Nancy Pelosi, who is now a Speaker for the ages.

Also, elsewhere in the Economist we find this opinion piece that supports health care reform.

American health-care reform: Pass the bill | The Economist

This is pretty funny. Pair the above with this quote from CG from elsewhere on the forum.

Nope, unless I see the quote, in context, so I know exactly what was said and in what context, then I don't believe jack shit. The reason I don't believe jack shit is because, time and again, people take one line or part of a comment and use it to score cheap political points. So, provide the quote, in context, or you lose.

She obviously does believe quotes out of context as long as they affirm her partisan view.

All that confirms is that some people are unable to differentiate between context and blurb. The rest of the quote said nothing about the bill, it was a high five, partisan comment. It was unnecessary to the context.

 

[JimH52]

You have never posted anything nonpartisan, Why should you start now?

 

[California Girl]

You have never posted anything nonpartisan, Why should you start now?

Yep, you're right. I have never, ever, in one single post supported those with pre-existing conditions and ensuring a 'level playing field' for healthcare - nope, not once. I have never agreed with my liberal friends on the board. Never. You're quite right.







Or, have I and you're just too fucking stupid to see it? Hmmmmm. It's a puzzle.

*Sniggers cuz apparently Ravi is also too dumb to have read any either....*

Sucks to be you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Health reform in America: Signed, sealed, delivered | The Economist

What will it mean for America? The short answer is that the reforms will expand coverage dramatically, but at a heavy cost to the taxpayer. They will also do far too little to rein in the underlying drivers of America’s roaring health inflation. Analysis by RAND, an independent think-tank, suggests that the reforms will actually increase America’s overall health spending—public plus private—by about 2% by 2020, in comparison with a scenario of no reform (see chart). And that rate of spending was already unsustainable at a time when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in large numbers.

The heart of the new reform is a restructuring of America’s flawed insurance market. Insurers now face tough new regulations forbidding such practices as dropping people with “pre-existing conditions” (real or trumped up), or putting lifetime caps on coverage

OK. Simple solution. Allow people or companies to buy into Medicare, at the real rate of cost. Revenue neutral, and it would lower the cost as the program at present only insures the most expensive portion of the population.
Rep. Alan Grayson's "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act" Attracts 50 Co-Sponsors