Losing the fiscal argument on healthcare, GOP tries to discredit the referees

[Oddball]

First of all I seriously doubt this "overwhelming majority" of support for that heap of shit.

Secondly, if the polls weren't worth paying any attention to then, what makes them so godawful important now?

 

[Oddball]

Most voters didn't want that Frankenstein's monster of a bill passed, either...But the left ignored them.

Now, we're supposed to care?

I think we should poll the (what is it for the correct sample, 2k? ) people everytime we need to pass legislation

Y'all already do....So the is you.

 

[whitehall]

The "referees" are you and me not some bunch of bureaucrats appointed by Obama. What does Van Jones think? Does it matter? Corporations are you and me. Mussolini would have agreed if he wasn't hanging upside down from a light pole.

 

[RDD_1210]

First of all I seriously doubt this "overwhelming majority" of support for that heap of shit.

Secondly, if the polls weren't worth paying any attention to then, what makes them so godawful important now?

They're not, but you made reference to what the people wanted. I was simply pointing out what the people want now.

 

[G.T.]

Right...When your crammed-down-the-throat policy goes over like a turd in the punch bowl, it's best to get your name dissociated from it post haste.

Crammed down who's throat>? I thought it passed the legislative process.

Yeah...Just like when things in China "pass the legislative process".

Ok, so you're claiming it wasn't a real vote?

 

[G.T.]

Most voters didn't want that Frankenstein's monster of a bill passed, either...But the left ignored them.

Now, we're supposed to care?

I think we should poll the (what is it for the correct sample, 2k? ) people everytime we need to pass legislation

Y'all already do....So the is you.

They do? I thought they ignored them, for healthcare? You're saying 2 opposing things now.......which is it?

 

[Oddball]

First of all I seriously doubt this "overwhelming majority" of support for that heap of shit.

Secondly, if the polls weren't worth paying any attention to then, what makes them so godawful important now?

They're not, but you made reference to what the people wanted. I was simply pointing out what the people want now.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3233835-post15.html

Please try to keep up with current events.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think we should poll the (what is it for the correct sample, 2k? ) people everytime we need to pass legislation

Y'all already do....So the is you.

They do? I thought they ignored them, for healthcare? You're saying 2 opposing things now.......which is it?

Get ready to be ignored by Oddball or to be insulted. It's what he does when you back him in to a corner and he has no logical answer.

 

[RDD_1210]

First of all I seriously doubt this "overwhelming majority" of support for that heap of shit.

Secondly, if the polls weren't worth paying any attention to then, what makes them so godawful important now?

They're not, but you made reference to what the people wanted. I was simply pointing out what the people want now.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3233835-post15.html

Please try to keep up with current events.

I was referring to what people wanted in terms of the healthcare legislation....ya know, the topic that this thread is about. Crazy I know.

 

[code1211]

I suspect that the HC reforms enacted under Obama are doomed.

This will bring us back to the same conditions that lead the Dems to attempt reform in the first place.

Believe me, that system is ALSO unsustainable and doomed to fail us, so we can expect some other kind of "reform" in the future.

One can only hope that neither a DEM nor a REP will be the author of that reform as both have proven to be not up to the task.

I don't know...

I think Obamacare is a rigged and gigged mess that will certainly be a catastophe if it's enacted.

WE agree on that.



And on that, too.




Those ideas, while possibly being sound will ALSO fail.





No argument from me on that, either.



The whole idea that the problem is merely one of funding is flawed.



Not a clue what the above means.




Well its a drop dead certainty that we won't reduce prices by throwning more money at HC, isn't it?


Is that a thought that is just too obvious to be understood in Washington?



I totally agree.

Obamacare takes the position that the river is flowing in the wrong direction and is trying to make the water flow upstream. The appraoch should be to see if the river can support various other channels and create them.

I've posted my objections to the current reforms many time on this board.

Don't try to build a pyramid; just pitch a tent for the guy who needs it for a night's sleep. Then use that tent tomorrow for the next guy and so on.

Don't know what the above means, either.

What I can tell you is that we cannot fix the HC problem by putting more people on government HC or by doing nothing, either.

We do not have a demand side problem.

Demand will expand to suck up every cent we throw into HC

We do have a supply side problem.

HC providers are making too god damned much money and there's not enough of them.

That's a SUPPLY SIDE problem.

Look, the whole theory of pricing depends on a theory that does NOT apply in HC.

The theory of man as a RATIONAL CONSUMER.

That's a preposterous assumption to begin with and an ESPECIALLY preposterous assumption when it comes to HC.

Absolutely correct! We are trying to operate a supply & demand business with a socialist funding scheme. The result is that everybody wants and gets the top level (and priced) care and does not even check the cost.

I and others on this board have conjectured that if this was the way cars were purchased we would all be driving some model from Rolls Royce.

Insurance companies are now adding cost components to their policies that force the policy holders to check the costs. The "Donut Hole" from Medicare is being built into employer provided plans so the employee suddenly foots all of the cost between a minimum threshold and the next threshhold.

The reason? To bring the market into play. In my plan, there used to be a co-pay from dollar one to a certain point at which 100% took over to a top end limit. Now there is a 100% cover to a threshold at which point I foot 100% to the next level and then there is an 80% co pay to the same limit where 100% coverage kicks in again.

There is now an incentive for me to stay under the first threshold and I am trying to do so.

The premiums stayed the same year to year. If I don't use much, I get a better return. If I use it all, it's the same. If I exceed the first threshold and get far enough into the Donut Hole, it cost me more.

In my case, it's working to accomplish the intended goal.

This approach will bend the cost of care down because every covered individual will find a way to decrease his own costs.

 

[code1211]

I don't know if Obamacare is the whole answer or even the right answer. But what we should be able to agree on is that the HC system is BROKEN and only getting worse. People who got sick or injured were going bankrupt because they couldn't afford the HC premiums. And when the hospitals couldn't collect on the bills they would simply pass the costs onto the rest of us.

Forcing people to buy HC coverage and subsidizing premiums for the lower income only promotes social responsibility. No longer will it be acceptable to expect everyone else to pay for your decision to not buy HC. That's why I agreed with forcing people to buy auto insurance.

I say give Obamacare a chance to work and solve the problems as they occur.

Forcing people to buy auto insurance is not a parallel to forcing people to buy health care insurance.

Everyone alive does not own a car. The Priviledge to drive is licensed by the State and can be revoked if abused. The insurance that is mandated is liability, not comprehensive. You are only required to carry insurance protecting those around you, not you.

Everyone alive is alive. The priviledge to live is actually a right and cannot be revoked by the State if abused, although there are strong arguments that in some cases it shuld be. My first wife comes to mind. The insurance that is required is personal. You would be required to carry insurance protecting you, not those around you.

The only similarity is the word. Like this:

The boards on my deck came loose because they were not screwed.

The President's contituants re-elected him because they were not screwed.

See? Same word, entirely different meaning.

 

[Provocateur]

Losing the fiscal argument on health care, Republicans try to discredit the referees

Friday, January 21, 2011
It's the age of civility in American politics, but there's one institution that's been civil all along: the Congressional Budget Office (sorry, but sometimes civility is boring). The nonpartisan agency, which calculates the official cost of legislation for Congress, speaks in the polite language of actuarial tables, refuses to reliably please or disappoint either party and is the closest thing American politics has to an umpire. And the Republicans are getting sick and tired of it.
<more>

Referees???

CBO bases its calculations on what is presented to them. Think the liberals were honest about everything? If you do, you haven't been paying attention, or are simply ignoring all of the evidence.

Can you say Doctor Fix?

 

[code1211]

I love the word "Obamacare"; Obama cares. I suppose some Republicans care but the leadership's care seems to be focused on the Republican Party's future, not my future, your future or our kid's futures.
Blaming Obama for the rise in the cost of medical care and getting people to believe it is masterful. If only the Republican leadership were honest the problems might be more easily defined (pointing fingers is easy, defining problems not so much) and compromise might lead to win-win solutons. As it stands we are watching a zero sum game played out by the Republican leadership which assures losers.

Right...When your crammed-down-the-throat policy goes over like a turd in the punch bowl, it's best to get your name dissociated from it post haste.

Crammed down who's throat>? I thought it passed the legislative process.

Kind of, but not quite. The Senate passed a version and then the House passed that version intact so it would not go back to the Senate in a version that would need to be voted upon again and which would have been rejected. Stupak and his gang voted for it with the unwritten understanding that no funds would be used for Abortion. Of course, this will happen in it's current version.

The only people who did not understand that Stupak was being lied to were Stupak and his gang.

This was political tactic which, while technically legal is an end run around the proceedures that are designed to prevent this type of swindle on the public.

The biggest reversal of political power in the history of the Republic occurred due to the passage of this travesty which was a party priority opposed by the majority of America.

It is more accurate to say this was A legislative process, not THE legislative process.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The CBO is anything but reliable. They simply make calculations based on the assumptions and information given. The Dems figured out how to game the system by inputting unrealistic assumptions. The GOP is being rude enough to call them on this.
Obamacare is a fiscal nightmare. How could it be otherwise? The American people understand this, with a majority believing it will add to the deficit, a correct belief btw.

Not to mention the CBO only works within the confines of the asumptions given them.

 

[DaGoose]

Ok.....so what's the GOP's alternative? Or do you all think no action was needed?

 

[Provocateur]

Ok.....so what's the GOP's alternative? Or do you all think no action was needed?

Yes, no one has denied that reform is needed.

The ability to purchase across state lines and medical malpractice reform would have been a great start.

Creating a 2000+ page monster of a bill was simply a power grab.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ok.....so what's the GOP's alternative? Or do you all think no action was needed?

Yes, no one has denied that reform is needed.

The ability to purchase across state lines and medical malpractice reform would have been a great start.

Creating a 2000+ page monster of a bill was simply a power grab.

Both of what you mention are in this legislation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ok.....so what's the GOP's alternative? Or do you all think no action was needed?

So it's wholesale government takeover vs. nothing?

Hey, many alternatives were thrown out, most included taking the myriad of restriction of the health insurance offerings to tort reform. This process did not once address what was causing the problems, only how the government could get involved in the process of providing health care. It was a done deal from the start.

 

[Provocateur]

Ok.....so what's the GOP's alternative? Or do you all think no action was needed?

Yes, no one has denied that reform is needed.

The ability to purchase across state lines and medical malpractice reform would have been a great start.

Creating a 2000+ page monster of a bill was simply a power grab.

Both of what you mention are in this legislation.

It doesn't take 2000+ pages to cover those two things.

 

[saveliberty]

The OP is flawed. The GOP is not discrediting the CBO. They are debating, rightfully so, that the data given to the CBO was poor, inaccurate and patently rigged. Using
flawed data has resulted in numbers being off 100s of billions before. Thanks Democrats.

How close are we to the rate of premium increase used?
How clsoe are we to the funds were supposed to have at this point?
Are we on track as far as employment rate?

Surely you liberals can give me answers.