Romneycare vs. Obamacare.............

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't care. I am confident that they'll figure something out.

Six months ago I would've assumed that at worst Romney would've turned out to be a competent technocrat.

But after one disastrous, ill-thought out policy proposal after another I'm starting to think he's kind of an idiot. At least when it comes to public policy. Perhaps he should go back to something he's good at.

I'm sure your opinion carries a lot of weight.

 

[Trajan]

I don't care. I am confident that they'll figure something out.

Six months ago I would've assumed that at worst Romney would've turned out to be a competent technocrat.

But after one disastrous, ill-thought out policy proposal after another I'm starting to think he's kind of an idiot. At least when it comes to public policy. Perhaps he should go back to something he's good at.

take your own advice, becasue as a shill, you suck.



more free advice, some of the same type I gave you back in x mas 2010, when went we went round and round before you got all pissy becasue you got your ass handed to you-

-- never ever claim to be right 100% of the time; no one ever is and its stupid. Only the sheep believe you and you don't need their vote anyway....



see how that works?

 

[Zander]

What happens to Ryan's mom (or anyone's, for that matter) between 2016, when Romney bankrupts Medicare, and 2023 when his reforms--that Mom isn't supposed to be subject to anyway--allegedly start?

Any ideas?

I don't care. I am confident that they'll figure something out.

Meanwhile, more bad news for Obamacare......http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/u...-make-family-coverage-too-costly.html?_r=4&hp

you need to log in for that zander.....i don't pay to read the NY Times

Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: August 11, 2012


WASHINGTON — The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service in particular.

J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press


Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.

The fight revolves around how to define “affordable” under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance.

Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits and other subsidies to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.

The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income. The I.R.S. says this calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”

Critics say the administration should also take account of the costs of covering a spouse and children because family coverage typically costs much more.

In 2011, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,430 a year for single coverage and $15,070 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $920 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,130, for family coverage.

Under the I.R.S. proposal, such costs would be deemed affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

The debate over the meaning of affordable pits the Obama administration against its usual allies. Many people who support the new law said the proposed rules could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage.

“The effect of this wrong interpretation of the law will be that many families remain or potentially become uninsured,” said a letter to the administration from Democrats who pushed the bill through the House in 2009-10. The lawmakers include Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Sander M. Levin of Michigan.

Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said: “This is a serious glitch. Under the proposal, millions of children and families would be unable to obtain affordable coverage in the workplace, but ineligible for subsidies to buy private insurance in the exchanges” to be established in each state.

Businesses dislike the idea of insurance mandates and penalties, but said the I.R.S. had correctly interpreted the law.

“Employers who offer health coverage do so primarily on behalf of their employees,” said Kathryn Wilber, a lawyer at the American Benefits Council, which represents many Fortune 500 companies. “Although many employers do provide family coverage to full-time employees, many do not.”

The I.R.S. issued final rules for the health insurance premium tax credit in May, but deferred its final decision on the affordability of family coverage.

Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said, “We welcome comments from stakeholders and consumer groups and look forward to continuing to work with them to implement these rules and to ensure families get the affordable care they need.”

The administration is trying to strike a balance. If the rules allow more people to qualify for subsidies, it would increase costs to the federal government. If the rules require employers to provide affordable coverage to dependents as well as workers, it would increase costs for many employers.

Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat who is the insurance commissioner of North Carolina, said the proposed federal policy would create a hardship for many state employees.

North Carolina pays all or nearly all of the premium for health insurance covering state government employees, but it has never paid the cost for their dependents, Mr. Goodwin said.

 

[Trajan]

So all of a sudden now it's OK to discuss Medicare cuts because Obama hacked $700B to pay for Obamacare.

Hmmmmkay

no, they are shifting gears now, they have to, becasue despite the drawbacks in both romneys ans ryans plans, they have caught obama out.


Obama cannot argue he is not taking the money out, aside from the stupid double counting, he is taking the money out and it will not be spent on medicare, thats the point and any dolt of a senior gets that.

Ryan and Romney have used political jiu jitsu, basically using your opponents own weight against them.....greenbread is scrambling now, he'll get the new talking points later ....for now, hes out of bullets.

 

[Trajan]

I don't care. I am confident that they'll figure something out.

Meanwhile, more bad news for Obamacare......http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/u...-make-family-coverage-too-costly.html?_r=4&hp

you need to log in for that zander.....i don't pay to read the NY Times

Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: August 11, 2012


WASHINGTON — The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service in particular.

J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press


Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.

The fight revolves around how to define “affordable” under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance.

Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits and other subsidies to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.

The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income. The I.R.S. says this calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”

Critics say the administration should also take account of the costs of covering a spouse and children because family coverage typically costs much more.

In 2011, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,430 a year for single coverage and $15,070 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $920 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,130, for family coverage.

Under the I.R.S. proposal, such costs would be deemed affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

The debate over the meaning of affordable pits the Obama administration against its usual allies. Many people who support the new law said the proposed rules could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage.

“The effect of this wrong interpretation of the law will be that many families remain or potentially become uninsured,” said a letter to the administration from Democrats who pushed the bill through the House in 2009-10. The lawmakers include Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Sander M. Levin of Michigan.

Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said: “This is a serious glitch. Under the proposal, millions of children and families would be unable to obtain affordable coverage in the workplace, but ineligible for subsidies to buy private insurance in the exchanges” to be established in each state.

Businesses dislike the idea of insurance mandates and penalties, but said the I.R.S. had correctly interpreted the law.

“Employers who offer health coverage do so primarily on behalf of their employees,” said Kathryn Wilber, a lawyer at the American Benefits Council, which represents many Fortune 500 companies. “Although many employers do provide family coverage to full-time employees, many do not.”

The I.R.S. issued final rules for the health insurance premium tax credit in May, but deferred its final decision on the affordability of family coverage.

Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said, “We welcome comments from stakeholders and consumer groups and look forward to continuing to work with them to implement these rules and to ensure families get the affordable care they need.”

The administration is trying to strike a balance. If the rules allow more people to qualify for subsidies, it would increase costs to the federal government. If the rules require employers to provide affordable coverage to dependents as well as workers, it would increase costs for many employers.

Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat who is the insurance commissioner of North Carolina, said the proposed federal policy would create a hardship for many state employees.

North Carolina pays all or nearly all of the premium for health insurance covering state government employees, but it has never paid the cost for their dependents, Mr. Goodwin said.

obamacare- not helping one family at a time!


thx...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So all of a sudden now it's OK to discuss Medicare cuts because Obama hacked $700B to pay for Obamacare.

Hmmmmkay

no, they are shifting gears now, they have to, becasue despite the drawbacks in both romneys ans ryans plans, they have caught obama out.


Obama cannot argue he is not taking the money out, aside from the stupid double counting, he is taking the money out and it will not be spent on medicare, thats the point and any dolt of a senior gets that.

Ryan and Romney have used political jiu jitsu, basically using your opponents own weight against them.....greenbread is scrambling now, he'll get the new talking points later ....for now, hes out of bullets.

Well, Greenbeard is probably an account accessed by people working for the WH anyway and not an individual.

 

[Zander]

Here's the official response by the Romney/Ryan Team- go to the link below for full memo...

Memorandum

To: Interested Parties
From: Lanhee Chen, Ph.D., Policy Director
Date: 8/18/2012
Re: Understanding A President Who Claims Cuts “Strengthen” Medicare, Payments To Hospitals Are “Waste,” And Insurance For Seniors Is A “Subsidy”

In an unprecedented blow to seniors who rely on Medicare, President Obama took $716 billion away from the program and spent it on his federal takeover of the health care system. This is not in dispute. You can watch President Obama acknowledge it in this interview with ABC News. You can watch the President’s deputy campaign manager call it an achievement in this interview with CBS News. Or you can read about it in the latest Congressional Budget Office score of a proposed Obamacare repeal.

And yet, the President continues to put forward head-scratching claims like “FACT: President Obama’s health care law strengthens Medicare benefits while cutting waste and insurance company subsidies.” Let’s unpack this a bit.
What exactly did the President cut, and what will the effects be?

The Largest Source Of Cuts Is A $415B Reduction In Provider Payments. This means that Medicare will reduce the amount that it pays to doctors and hospitals for the services they provide to seniors. In an imaginary world where government simply controls everything and everyone, this might sound like an effective way to control cost. In the real world, the result will be fewer providers accepting Medicare payments, and worse care for today’s seniors.

The Medicare Trustees, for instance, have concluded that Obamacare’s cuts “will not be viable.” Medicare’s chief actuary has called the cuts “unrealistic” (noting that they “could become unsustainable even within the next 10 years”), and testified that “almost every expert I have talked to thinks there is only a limited likelihood that that could work in the longer term.” A recent report by the government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that Obamacare’s funding approach would be “inadequate” and quoted Health Affairs warning that reduced payments “could jeopardize Medicare beneficiaries’ access to mainstream medical care.”

President Obama knows exactly what this will mean. In his own words, sharp cuts to the payments that Medicare makes to providers will “jeopardize … our seniors’ health care.” You can watch him explaining at length how reduced Medicare reimbursements will harm seniors in this address from 2010. In that context he was referring to the threat of failing to extend the “Doc Fix” for another year, thereby triggering a 21% cut in payments that would cost approximately $280 billion to avoid over ten years. Obamacare’s $415 billion in cuts over ten years are deeper.

If Medicare refuses to pay for services, seniors will be denied care. A recent survey by the Physicians’ Foundation indicates that Obamacare will compel more than half of doctors to close or significantly restrict their practices for Medicare patients. Additionally, the government estimates that 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies will begin losing money and have to consider cutting off Medicare patients from care.

These are the largest cuts, but the President ignores them when describing how Obamacare affects Medicare. They begin in 2013, affecting today’s seniors immediately.

The Second Source Of Cuts Is A $156B Reduction In Funding For Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage (MA) allows seniors to use government funding to acquire a private insurance plan, rather than have the government pay for care directly. The popular program currently covers 13 million seniors, or approximately one in every four Medicare enrollees.

President Obama and his campaign have justified his cuts to MA as nothing but a reduction in “insurance company subsidies.” The only problem is that these so-called subsidies are in fact payments for health insurance that today’s seniors rely on. In other words, they are what most Americans would refer to as… Medicare.

The President made a straightforward promise to seniors. “Here's a guarantee that I've made: If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.” But the government now reports that, thanks to Obamacare, fully half of the seniors who would use MA will lose access to their plans.

Massive Cuts Are Not Good For Medicare. It is unfortunate that this even needs to be said, but the Obama campaign insists on suggesting that these cuts for today’s seniors are somehow a good thing for Medicare, and that the cuts have extended the program’s life.

This is false, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has said so: “financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under the PPACA) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.” Even President Obama, back before he would say anything to hold on to power, acknowledged as much: “you can’t say that you are saving on Medicare and then spend the money twice.” The $716 billion that Obamacare cuts from Medicare gets spent on expanding Medicaid and subsidizing exchanges. It is gone. Not a dollar of it is left to spend at any point in the future on Medicare.

Nor is it true, as the President has claimed, that the money gets spent within Obamacare on benefits for seniors. For instance, addressing the Medicare Part D coverage gap only uses $20 billion of the funds. In fact, the new Medicare-related spending is so insignificant that the current CBO score does not even bother mention it. It reports that Obamacare spends $642 billion on Medicaid expansion, $1,017 on exchange subsidies, $23 billion on tax credits, and that is all. One might forgive seniors for wondering whether strengthening Medicare is really the goal.

Mitt Romney And Paul Ryan Will Restore The Medicare Funding That Seniors Paid For And Deserve To Receive. Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan believe Obamacare was a terrible mistake, and have repeatedly made clear that they believe it must be repealed in its entirety. This includes repeal of President Obama’s $716 billion in Medicare cuts that slash provider payments and Medicare Advantage and threaten seniors’ access to care. Once Obamacare has been wiped off the books, America can move forward with patient-centered health care reforms that improve access and control cost, as well as with entitlement reform that protects Medicare for current seniors while strengthening it for future generations.

Romney and Ryan also believe that we must act to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the federal government, including within Medicare. That is why, in the same speech where he outlined his fiscal plan that included the repeal of Obamacare and reforms to Medicare, Governor Romney also highlighted the need to tackle improper payments. Similarly, the broader Romney-Ryan health care reforms to control costs throughout the system — e.g., greater choice and competition, tort reform, the block grant of Medicaid, etc. — will lead to lower costs for Medicare as well. But savings must come from lower prices in the marketplace, not from the government cutting support for the coverage and care on which seniors are depending.

#

 

[Greenbeard]

Here's the official response by the Romney/Ryan Team- go to the link below for full memo...

Nothing in there quite answers the question of what happens to seniors between 2016, when Romney bankrupts Medicare, and 2023, when he gives newbies a voucher. Perhaps their policy wizards are still trying to "figure something out"?

 

[LilOlLady]

When private healthcare system compete with each other it does not bring the cost of healthcare down. Mom and Pop could not compete with Wal Mart so they went bank rupt. PHC cannot operate effective without making a profit. Voucher would only pay for part of healthcare and seniors would have to pay more to get more services.
RomneyCare has been a complete failure even with the help from Medicaid. Governent healthcare. Half of it's clients are covered by Medicaid. Free healthcare.

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,[1][2], informally referred to as Romneycare, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL).[3] The bill aimed to cover 95% of the state's 500,000 uninsured within a three year period.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

RomneyCare is a prime example of a government entitlement program.

 

[SniperFire]

Here's the official response by the Romney/Ryan Team- go to the link below for full memo...

Nothing in there quite answers the question of what happens to seniors between 2016, when Romney bankrupts Medicare, and 2023, when he gives newbies a voucher. Perhaps their policy wizards are still trying to "figure something out"?

You are living the Liberal Lie.

The solvency date has never changed, regardless of what they told you to regurgitate in your Talking Point Memo.

If fact, the solvency situation can only get worse now that Obama has gouged Medicare for current seniors by a whopping $700+ billion.

 

[Greenbeard]

The solvency date has never changed, regardless of what they told you to regurgitate in your Talking Point Memo.

Not sure how that helps Mittens out.

You're arguing that the approaching date of insolvency has always been 2016, and that it bouncing up to somewhere between 2024 and 2029 following the passage of the ACA was illusory.

Cool. But even if you believe that the insolvency date has always been 2016, it doesn't get Mitt off the hook. What happens to seniors between 2016 and 2023?

 

[SniperFire]

The solvency date has never changed, regardless of what they told you to regurgitate in your Talking Point Memo.

Not sure how that helps Mittens out.

You're arguing that the approaching date of insolvency has always been 2016, and that it bouncing up to somewhere between 2024 and 2029 following the passage of the ACA was illusory.

Cool. But even if you believe that the insolvency date has always been 2016, it doesn't get Mitt off the hook. What happens to seniors between 2016 and 2023?

Wow. You really aren't very bright.

 

[Greenbeard]

The solvency date has never changed, regardless of what they told you to regurgitate in your Talking Point Memo.

Not sure how that helps Mittens out.

You're arguing that the approaching date of insolvency has always been 2016, and that it bouncing up to somewhere between 2024 and 2029 following the passage of the ACA was illusory.

Cool. But even if you believe that the insolvency date has always been 2016, it doesn't get Mitt off the hook. What happens to seniors between 2016 and 2023?

Wow. You really aren't very bright.

Aw, you're hurting my feelings.

So what is Mitt proposing happens when Medicare reverts to the pre-ACA insolvency date of 2016?

 

[SniperFire]

Not sure how that helps Mittens out.

You're arguing that the approaching date of insolvency has always been 2016, and that it bouncing up to somewhere between 2024 and 2029 following the passage of the ACA was illusory.

Cool. But even if you believe that the insolvency date has always been 2016, it doesn't get Mitt off the hook. What happens to seniors between 2016 and 2023?

Wow. You really aren't very bright.

Aw, you're hurting my feelings.

So what is Mitt proposing happens when Medicare reverts to the pre-ACA insolvency date of 2016?

The insolvency date never moved. Obama is double-counting.

You are just going to have to live with that.

 

[Greenbeard]

The insolvency date never moved. Obama is double-counting.

Okay. That means it never moved from being 2016.

The dates putting it in the mid to late 2020s were the result of the ACA. You're telling us it never moved and so those optimistic estimates are false. Great.

So Medicare is insolvent in 2016. What happens to seniors between then and receipt of their shiny new voucher in 2023?

 

[SniperFire]

The insolvency date never moved. Obama is double-counting.

Okay. That means it never moved from being 2016.

The dates putting it in the mid to late 2020s were the result of the ACA. You're telling us it never moved and so those optimistic estimates are false. Great.

So Medicare is insolvent in 2016. What happens to seniors between then and receipt of their shiny new voucher in 2023?

LOL

You are clueless.

 

[Greenbeard]

LOL

You are clueless.

No thoughts on what happens between Romney bankrupting Medicare in 2016 and the emergence of vouchercare in 2023? No memos from the campaign trying to paper over the damage yet, I suppose. Perhaps they're working on it.

 

[francoHFW]

The reason the Obama strategy works is the huge cost savings from O-care on ALL medical costs. Romneycare in Mass proves it. Dumbazzes.

 

[SniperFire]

Medicare has been insolvent for many years.

'It’s something everyone knows, but no one wants to talk about: Medicare’s cash position makes Enron’s business model look downright reputable.

Medicare is bleeding cash — a fact disguised by creative accounting. According to Monday’s release of the 2012 Trustees Report, in 2011 Medicare took in $260.8 billion in payroll taxes and beneficiary premiums, but spent $549.1 billion in medical services. That means last year Medicare ran a $288.3 billion cash shortfall.

And 2011 wasn’t the exception; it was the norm. Since President Lyndon Baines Johnson secured passage of Medicare legislation in 1965, the program has run cash deficits every year except 1966 and 1974.

Advocates of the status quo argue that Medicare receives “general revenue transfers,” but that’s government-speak for raiding the Treasury to spend other tax revenues. It’s the dramatic use of general-revenue transfers that has hidden Medicare’s true insolvency from the public and masked Medicare’s contribution to the national debt.'

Medicare

 

[Greenbeard]

Does that mean I should tell grandma not to get sick while Mitt's figuring out how to muddle through until his reforms kick in circa 2023? This guy's in over his head.