House Votes to Repeal “Job-Killing” Health Care Law 236-181 and Now This...

[Cuyo]

I have faith in what the CBO says..... including what they say about tax cuts...

I was hoping you could point out where we may have gone wrong here...

Gladly.

Just read the e-mail to the link; Ignore the highly partisan and extraordinarily disingenuous analysis above. The CBO has determined that outlays would be reduced by $540B - That part is true. But it also has determined it would reduce revenues by about $770B.

The end result of repeal is net deficit increase of $230B.

Listen Stupid, these same hacks told us that Medicare Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion.

You realize you were wrong and now you're lashing out at me. That's OK, it's human nature.

 

[Cuyo]

I have faith in what the CBO says..... including what they say about tax cuts...

I was hoping you could point out where we may have gone wrong here...

Gladly.

Just read the e-mail to the link; Ignore the highly partisan and extraordinarily disingenuous analysis above. The CBO has determined that outlays would be reduced by $540B - That part is true. But it also has determined it would reduce revenues by about $770B.

The end result of repeal is net deficit increase of $230B.

since no other media outlet has got a copy of this letter, im extremely skeptical of the source.

here an actual letter to Mr Boehner confirming the CBO predict a repeal of the health care law would actually add to the deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf

No RA, there's nothing wrong with the copy this particular "Media outlet" (We're using that term loosely for the sake of argument) has. It's the analysis. If you read the E-mail, it says what it says. Repeal would add $230B to the deficit.

The irony is that it's been interpreted as just the opposite, and Annie and Zander and Requeer just ran with it, not really understanding what it was.

 

[Real American]

Gladly.

Just read the e-mail to the link; Ignore the highly partisan and extraordinarily disingenuous analysis above. The CBO has determined that outlays would be reduced by $540B - That part is true. But it also has determined it would reduce revenues by about $770B.

The end result of repeal is net deficit increase of $230B.

since no other media outlet has got a copy of this letter, im extremely skeptical of the source.

here an actual letter to Mr Boehner confirming the CBO predict a repeal of the health care law would actually add to the deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf

No RA, there's nothing wrong with the copy this particular "Media outlet" (We're using that term loosely for the sake of argument) has. It's the analysis. If you read the E-mail, it says what it says. Repeal would add $230B to the deficit.

read the actual letter to Boehner that the CBO released. its states the exact opposite of what you are claiming and includes all the pages, not just an exerp.

 

[rdean]

- The nation's economy added 103,000 jobs in December and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent last month, its lowest level in 19 months.

Private employers added a net total of 113,000 jobs last month and the government shed 10,000 jobs, the Labor Department said Friday.

103K New Jobs In Dec. Point To Steady Growth

Through all of 2010, the nation added 1.1 million jobs, or an average of 94,000 jobs a month

The health care and leisure and hospitality sectors showed the strongest job gains last month. Health care added about 36,000 jobs, while restaurants and hotels hired more than 29,000 new workers.

-------------------------------------------

According to "Manufacturing Net", the single largest increase in jobs has been in "healthcare".

How do Republicans explain that?

Of course, they can't. They hate Obama so much, they can't see him do anything good.

Can someone say, "Cut off nose to spite face"?

And look at that, not only were jobs ADDED, but government jobs were CUT.

 

[Cuyo]

since no other media outlet has got a copy of this letter, im extremely skeptical of the source.

here an actual letter to Mr Boehner confirming the CBO predict a repeal of the health care law would actually add to the deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf

No RA, there's nothing wrong with the copy this particular "Media outlet" (We're using that term loosely for the sake of argument) has. It's the analysis. If you read the E-mail, it says what it says. Repeal would add $230B to the deficit.

read the actual letter to Boehner that the CBO released. its states the exact opposite of what you are claiming and includes all the pages, not just an exerp.

RA, you and I are claiming the same thing.

 

[Real American]

No RA, there's nothing wrong with the copy this particular "Media outlet" (We're using that term loosely for the sake of argument) has. It's the analysis. If you read the E-mail, it says what it says. Repeal would add $230B to the deficit.

read the actual letter to Boehner that the CBO released. its states the exact opposite of what you are claiming and includes all the pages, not just an exerp.

RA, you and I are claiming the same thing.

my bad man, i finally saw that. its hard to keep all the argument on here straight with all the deflections sometimes. sorry about that

 

[Real American]

Blue Shield of California proposes 59% premium rate hike - Jan. 7, 2011

One of California's largest health insurers - Blue Shield - announced plans to hike its premiums by as much as 59%.

The jacked up premium rates are set to take effect on March 1, pending review from state insurance regulators. The move impacts 193,000 individual Blue Shield policy holders.


The company, a member of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association with 3.3 million members, which announced the move late Thursday, stressed that its decision has "almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law" and that ultimately the law will help slow down health care costs.

what is to blame you may ask...

"But responding to this most recent increase the company said, "our individual market medical costs are rising rapidly due to higher provider prices, increased utilization, and the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy," the company said."

hahaha premium increases of 59% and they specifically state that its not because of the health care law. lets hear the GOP defend this one..

 

[code1211]

Can anyone cite specific passage in the HC law that they are against outside of the mandate?

and can someone explain how the law is "job killing?" ive head thing term quote a few times, but no one ever explains how the bill will cost jobs....

The costs of health care are rising. Since this thing was passed, they are rising faster. The cost of insurance to pay for the cost of healthcare is rising.

Since healthcare insurance is a benefit and the cost of this benefit is supported by employers as a part of compensation, it raises the cost of hiring each employee. If you have 5 employees, the cost is higher than if you have 3 employees even if you are actually paying more in wage rate dollars. As an example, one of my clients is currently working its employees 59 hours/week.

Of those hours for each hourly employee, 19 are paid at time and a half. 19x1.5=28.5.

3 employees working 19 hours of overtime equals the complete wage cost of 2 added employees working about 40 hours. The benefits package, though, usually equals 35% of the total payroll cost.

So, while the wage rate expense is higher per person for the working employees, the day by day cost to the employer is lower out of the gate by maintaining fewer employees and the risk of incurring unemployment costs in a work reduction is also reduced.

This particular employer is a contract job employer, a large machine shop, and the work could go away abruptly.

The lower the costs of adding each separate person, the more readily they will be hired. The higher that cost, the less likely it becomes that headcount additions will be made.

It is simply a cost benefit ratio. If the work can be done at a lower cost with fewer employees, then that will be the chosen option. If the cost of adding employees reduces the cost of producing the products, then that will be the choice.

It is the job of government to assure that it is not needlessly increasing the costs to add people to the payroll. When government determines, as this one has, that employers exist to hire employers instead of existing to create profits, they create an environment of increasing costs that the employers will suffer within but will still work to create profits in the ways that are left.

In this environment, one of those ways is to reduce headcount.

I hope this helps to clear things up for you.

 

[Revere]

Blue Shield of California proposes 59% premium rate hike - Jan. 7, 2011

One of California's largest health insurers - Blue Shield - announced plans to hike its premiums by as much as 59%.

The jacked up premium rates are set to take effect on March 1, pending review from state insurance regulators. The move impacts 193,000 individual Blue Shield policy holders.


The company, a member of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association with 3.3 million members, which announced the move late Thursday, stressed that its decision has "almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law" and that ultimately the law will help slow down health care costs.

what is to blame you may ask...

"But responding to this most recent increase the company said, "our individual market medical costs are rising rapidly due to higher provider prices, increased utilization, and the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy," the company said."

hahaha premium increases of 59% and they specifically state that its not because of the health care law. lets hear the GOP defend this one..

California regulators have one of the tightest leashes on health insurers of any state in the nation.

What the hell is it accomplishing?

 

[code1211]

Yeppers..

Should have went for the Public Option in the first place.
But what can ya do?

Republicans got this..now they don't want it anymore.

You repeatedly make this recomendation. Are there allot of examples of improved efficiency or quality in an environment of limited or no competition?

I have trouble thinking of any...

 

[rdean]

Yeppers..

Should have went for the Public Option in the first place.
But what can ya do?

Republicans got this..now they don't want it anymore.

You repeatedly make this recomendation. Are there allot of examples of improved efficiency or quality in an environment of limited or no competition?

I have trouble thinking of any...

Veterans Administration.

 

[Revere]

The Veterans Administration is a plan a small number of people access which is paid for by a large number of people.

 

[Real American]

Can anyone cite specific passage in the HC law that they are against outside of the mandate?

and can someone explain how the law is "job killing?" ive head thing term quote a few times, but no one ever explains how the bill will cost jobs....

The costs of health care are rising. Since this thing was passed, they are rising faster. The cost of insurance to pay for the cost of healthcare is rising.

Since healthcare insurance is a benefit and the cost of this benefit is supported by employers as a part of compensation, it raises the cost of hiring each employee. If you have 5 employees, the cost is higher than if you have 3 employees even if you are actually paying more in wage rate dollars. As an example, one of my clients is currently working its employees 59 hours/week.

Of those hours for each hourly employee, 19 are paid at time and a half. 19x1.5=28.5.

3 employees working 19 hours of overtime equals the complete wage cost of 2 added employees working about 40 hours. The benefits package, though, usually equals 35% of the total payroll cost.

So, while the wage rate expense is higher per person for the working employees, the day by day cost to the employer is lower out of the gate by maintaining fewer employees and the risk of incurring unemployment costs in a work reduction is also reduced.

This particular employer is a contract job employer, a large machine shop, and the work could go away abruptly.

The lower the costs of adding each separate person, the more readily they will be hired. The higher that cost, the less likely it becomes that headcount additions will be made.

It is simply a cost benefit ratio. If the work can be done at a lower cost with fewer employees, then that will be the chosen option. If the cost of adding employees reduces the cost of producing the products, then that will be the choice.

It is the job of government to assure that it is not needlessly increasing the costs to add people to the payroll. When government determines, as this one has, that employers exist to hire employers instead of existing to create profits, they create an environment of increasing costs that the employers will suffer within but will still work to create profits in the ways that are left.

In this environment, one of those ways is to reduce headcount.

I hope this helps to clear things up for you.

actually if you read the article i posted, Blue Cross freely admits that their rate hike has nothing to do with the new health care law.

i fail to see where your argument applies to employer provided health care, the new law does not required all businesses to provide health care benefits. there is a minimum size that company must meet in order to hit that threshold. (can you clarify, im not doubting your logic, i completely understand it, but in this care you describe a small company, which would be exempt)

the argument you make applies only to larger companies, most of which already provide some sort of benefits to the employee.

 

[Revere]

Can anyone cite specific passage in the HC law that they are against outside of the mandate?

and can someone explain how the law is "job killing?" ive head thing term quote a few times, but no one ever explains how the bill will cost jobs....

The costs of health care are rising. Since this thing was passed, they are rising faster. The cost of insurance to pay for the cost of healthcare is rising.

Since healthcare insurance is a benefit and the cost of this benefit is supported by employers as a part of compensation, it raises the cost of hiring each employee. If you have 5 employees, the cost is higher than if you have 3 employees even if you are actually paying more in wage rate dollars. As an example, one of my clients is currently working its employees 59 hours/week.

Of those hours for each hourly employee, 19 are paid at time and a half. 19x1.5=28.5.

3 employees working 19 hours of overtime equals the complete wage cost of 2 added employees working about 40 hours. The benefits package, though, usually equals 35% of the total payroll cost.

So, while the wage rate expense is higher per person for the working employees, the day by day cost to the employer is lower out of the gate by maintaining fewer employees and the risk of incurring unemployment costs in a work reduction is also reduced.

This particular employer is a contract job employer, a large machine shop, and the work could go away abruptly.

The lower the costs of adding each separate person, the more readily they will be hired. The higher that cost, the less likely it becomes that headcount additions will be made.

It is simply a cost benefit ratio. If the work can be done at a lower cost with fewer employees, then that will be the chosen option. If the cost of adding employees reduces the cost of producing the products, then that will be the choice.

It is the job of government to assure that it is not needlessly increasing the costs to add people to the payroll. When government determines, as this one has, that employers exist to hire employers instead of existing to create profits, they create an environment of increasing costs that the employers will suffer within but will still work to create profits in the ways that are left.

In this environment, one of those ways is to reduce headcount.

I hope this helps to clear things up for you.

actually if you read the article i posted, Blue Cross freely admits that their rate hike has nothing to do with the new health care law.

i fail to see where your argument applies to employer provided health care, the new law does not required all businesses to provide health care benefits. there is a minimum size that company must meet in order to hit that threshold. (can you clarify, im not doubting your logic, i completely understand it, but in this care you describe a small company, which would be exempt)

the argument you make applies only to larger companies, most of which already provide some sort of benefits to the employee.

So what is the function of the State Insurance Commissioner?

 

[Real American]

Yeppers..

Should have went for the Public Option in the first place.
But what can ya do?

Republicans got this..now they don't want it anymore.

You repeatedly make this recomendation. Are there allot of examples of improved efficiency or quality in an environment of limited or no competition?

I have trouble thinking of any...

utilities providers

ie - gas, water, phone, internet

 

[code1211]

thanks for once again avoiding the question.

Why will all the new government programs work when all the existing ones fail?

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

 

[Cuyo]

Why will all the new government programs work when all the existing ones fail?

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

Or, improve the efficiency of delivery, which is what HCR aims to do.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

Come on, you don't believe that, do you? The core principle here is an economy of scale. Our problem is that we have too many people leeching the system. At least in theory, nobody is denied care for their inability to pay. If they're on Medicaid, your taxes pay it. If they're not, and they show up in the ER, the paying customers subsidize their care through higher costs, hence higher insurance premiums.

There's a couple ways to address this. One is to try to get everyone insured. Whether it's via mandate or a "Socialized" insurance program, the paying customer wins. When Joe Citizen goes to a doctor with the sniffles, a $10 Z-Pack is all he needs. If he waits and waits for fear of a bill he can't pay, he winds up in the ER with pneumonia, fearing for his life. That Z-pack has just turned into a $10,000 stay in the hospital.

 

[Real American]

Why will all the new government programs work when all the existing ones fail?

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

the current alternatives only provide for the poor and the elderly. that leaves the young and middle aged out to dry. without simply dismantling the entire system and starting over, the new health care law tries to incorporate the current private HC system into this.

i am more in favor of gutting the whole systems and starting over. single payer, non profit, regulated health care. everyone pays the same price, everyone gets the same care. if costs increase to provide benefits, everyone gets the same rate increase. they can look at costs every 5 years and determine what rate increase if any is required to cover costs. this is a fair and simple system. this will also eliminate many of the administration positions that drive up costs.

 

[Zander]

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

the current alternatives only provide for the poor and the elderly. that leaves the young and middle aged out to dry. without simply dismantling the entire system and starting over, the new health care law tries to incorporate the current private HC system into this.

i am more in favor of gutting the whole systems and starting over. single payer, non profit, regulated health care. everyone pays the same price, everyone gets the same care. if costs increase to provide benefits, everyone gets the same rate increase. they can look at costs every 5 years and determine what rate increase if any is required to cover costs. this is a fair and simple system. this will also eliminate many of the administration positions that drive up costs.

Then you'd better pack your bags and move to Cuba, Comrade.

 

[Meister]

**** healthcare companies. I hope they all go bankrupt. They are a "pox" on this country.

Healthcare companies employ no doctors, no nurses, they own no hospitals. Their management gets paid multi million dollar salaries for producing nothing. They "earn" their money by skimming the insurance policies they "sell" to middle class Americans. We should have single payer.

the only HC provider i like is kaiser, simply because the are a non profit, and the both own and operate their own hospitals and health care centers.

I had kaiser, and they sucked. I bailed as soon as I could....but you are welcome to your own opinion with non profit. I just prefer better healthcare than what they able to supply.