Shared Sacrifice: Eliminating Obama Care saves $2 Trillion- do it for the US Obama

[Neotrotsky]

je parle francais- suis pas polonais. as a NYer, how did you get so misled?

This thread is INCORRECT- MOVE ON...

Mislead not at all

You sounded too dumb to be Polish

I just wanted to make sure
I ask you in Polish if you were

 

[Neotrotsky]

Medicare no exist as we know it

Indeed! Rightwingers tend to overlook this fact when considering the Ryan/Republican plan. Kudos for recognizing this.

Ryan’s proposal also eliminates the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

And yet one wonders whether his proposed Health Services Commission and Quality Forum (unelected boards! scary!) will rear their heads again.



Not very cloak and dagger, given that the criteria for receiving an annual limit waiver (i.e. demonstration that compliance with the annual limit phaseout will generate large premium increases or significant decrease in access to benefits) are clearly posted and the GAO's audit of the process found that CCIIO is doing exactly what it says it's doing ("...we found that CCIIO granted waivers mostly for applications that projected the annual limit restriction would result in a significant premium increase of more than 10 percent, in addition to a significant decrease in access to benefits. Conversely, most of the denied applications projected a premium increase of 6 percent or less.")



Actually, additional financial security for those hard hit by health costs was an intended consequence of passing the law. Which is the source of that "suppression" of employment you're referring to according to CBO ("The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.").



I've already stated my view: Competition at the provider level shouldn't be sacrificed for competition at the payer level. You obviously take the opposite point of view.



Sure.

- take the gov't created artificial barriers between the final consumer and the price

What "gov't created artificial barriers" would those be?

The statist crony capitialism we have now increases the economic of scales in
health care creating fewer and larger companies. The gov't interjection into the market
place creates many of the same problems it then tries to "fix" by dishing out
their "feudal" favors to whoever they so choose.

Now exchanges, which you just hailed as a needed introduction of "market elements into the system," are "statist crony capitalism"? Perhaps you need to take a few moments and figure out what you actually believe.

I hailed the consumer have more control as a movement towards it
We are far from a free market

Ryan takes towards that - Papa Obama takes us in the other direction

Gov't regulation increases the economic of scales and drives out competitors
with the remaining becoming larger

The Left always complains about this big health care entities
Did you ever wonder how they got so big and why

Gov't often creates the very problems it then wants to fix

job security, I guess

People go to a doctor they have a co-pay, that amount of money is totally
divorced from the price mechanism. The consumer has no idea of the real cost
The same with prescriptions or any other medical service.
No competition across state lines for insurers
Provider groups- no real competition between doctors
Price fixing by the gov't on co pays , procedures etc
Medicare underpayments passed on to people with covered insurance
through increased payments on medicines, procedures and insurance

Tort lawyers were one of the largest contributors to Papa Obama
No tort reform. If this bill was serious about helping health care, it would have had tort reform in it.
It does not because it was never about lowering costs. It was about getting the gov'ts foot in the door even more.
Now, it is almost up our ass and we may not be able to pull it out.



PapaObama care will only push us towards a single payer system

If it was so wonderful why did the politicians exempt themselves
and they had the majority of it kick in after the his 2nd election
What is to hide? Again, not proper in a democracy

we agree to disagree



again
ad nauseum

 

[Greenbeard]

I hailed the consumer have more control as a movement towards it
We are far from a free market

Ryan takes towards that - Papa Obama takes us in the other direction

Gov't regulation increases the economic of scales and drives out competitors
with the remaining becoming larger

You're referring to the Ryan proposal that explicitly calls for "tightly regulated" health insurance exchanges?

First, it ensures security by setting up a tightly regulated exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.​

If it was so wonderful why did the politicians exempt themselves

They didn't.

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are--

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).​

It might help to familiarize yourself with the actual legislation.

and they had the majority of it kick in after the his 2nd election

That's because it takes time to implement it, particularly when implementation is left primarily to the states so they can tailor the ACA to their circumstances. That's not a fast process.

 

[Stephanie]

Look at all THE NEW Government agencies I posted folks.

IS this what you want RUNNING your HEALTHCARE?

this monster needs to be REPEALED.

 

[Neotrotsky]

so CBS is wrong too


CBS


One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I hailed the consumer have more control as a movement towards it
We are far from a free market

Ryan takes towards that - Papa Obama takes us in the other direction

Gov't regulation increases the economic of scales and drives out competitors
with the remaining becoming larger

You're referring to the Ryan proposal that explicitly calls for "tightly regulated" health insurance exchanges?

First, it ensures security by setting up a tightly regulated exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.​

It might help to familiarize yourself with the actual legislation.

Misspoke meant to say tried to exempt themselves


Medicare is basically a socialist system
Ryan's plan still move it in more in the direction of the market by allowing the consumer
to have more control of the money


Time to kick in
You mean collect the taxes up front and kick in the services later so
CBO could give it a good score

yeah makes sense, the left should really find a better excuse for this one


PapaObama care will only push us towards a single payer system

we agree to disagree
I believe the majority of Americans agree with me as well



again
ad nauseum

 

[Patrick2]

The CBO already analyzed the repeal legislation that passed the House months ago. Repeal increases the deficit.

I thought that EVERYONE knew that that was based on double counting and other democrat accounting gimmicks! Guess there are probably still people somewhere who don't know man has landed on the moon.


CBO Used Democrats Old Obamacare Numbers When Calculating Cost of Repeal | The Lonely Conservative

 

[Greenbeard]

so CBS is wrong too


CBS


One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

No, you're wrong. You asked "why did the politicians exempt themselves." The politicians, presumably, are the members of Congress. What CBS is referring to is the definitional language attached to the requirement that "Members of Congress and congressional staff" buy insurance through exchanges. The definitions for those terms in the law are:

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff' means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.​

What CBS is getting at is the language about staffers, which seems to refer to staffers who work for a member of Congress. The language, then, wouldn't apply to staffers employed by Congressional committees, instead of the office of a member.

This is irrelevant to your point, as the fact is that members of Congress are absolutely not exempt from anything. Even committee staffers aren't "exempt," in that the law still applies to them. The difference is that committee staffers would be allowed to remain on their group plan (the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan), just as the vast majority of Americans will remain on their existing group plans. Members of Congress, however, can't keep their group health insurance, they have to buy through the new exchanges.

Which brings us back to the point: It might help to familiarize yourself with the actual legislation. Congress isn't exempted from it.

 

[Stephanie]

Ask yourself people.???

WHY have they given out over 2500 waviers from this program? If it is SO GOOD.?

 

[Greenbeard]

I thought that EVERYONE knew that that was based on double counting and other democrat accounting gimmicks!

A passage from the Big Book of Rightwing Cliches. Neat.

 

[rdean]

This is the problem with Republicans and their unintended consequences. They think, "Oh, let's get rid of that and we'll save money". Implications, outcomes, consequences. These things don't cross their tiny minds.

Take for instance "Emergency Rooms". To see a doctor at a clinic costs 40 to 60 dollars. To see a doctor in an "Emergency Room" costs 10 to 15 times that amount and that's only to see the doctor. Who pays for that? We do.
For people without insurance, the number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills.

The entire reason behind Romneycare isn't to cost money, but to defer costs to insurance companies. But it will still cost money. Just not as much by far as people going to Emergency Rooms.

Republicans have shown this type of "mindless imaginings" time and again. It's why both their policies fail. Instead of thinking things through, they "imagine" how things will turn out based on a "gut feeling" or what they imagine is "common sense". I with I could only say, "They are wrong more than they're right" only, what have they been right about?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Who made that cost so high

Who was the biggest factor in increasing the costs-

Romneycare- how is that working out?

Well at least it was done by a state gov't the way it should be


As usual, the Left's simplistic answer is more gov't , more laws
Why is it with the Left we are always just one law or just one tax
from getting it fixed- but it never does

 

[Greenbeard]

Who made that cost so high

Who was the biggest factor in increasing the costs-

I love a good whodunit--especially when everyone's a suspect.

 

[Neotrotsky]

so CBS is wrong too


CBS


One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

No, you're wrong. You asked "why did the politicians exempt themselves." The politicians, presumably, are the members of Congress. What CBS is referring to is the definitional language attached to the requirement that "Members of Congress and congressional staff" buy insurance through exchanges. The definitions for those terms in the law are:

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff' means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.​

What CBS is getting at is the language about staffers, which seems to refer to staffers who work for a member of Congress. The language, then, wouldn't apply to staffers employed by Congressional committees, instead of the office of a member.

This is irrelevant to your point, as the fact is that members of Congress are absolutely not exempt from anything. Even committee staffers aren't "exempt," in that the law still applies to them. The difference is that committee staffers would be allowed to remain on their group plan (the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan), just as the vast majority of Americans will remain on their existing group plans. Members of Congress, however, can't keep their group health insurance, they have to buy through the new exchanges.

Which brings us back to the point: It might help to familiarize yourself with the actual legislation. Congress isn't exempted from it.

I meant to say why did they tried to exempt...

But if it makes you feel better to think otherwise - go ahead

It still does not make you any more correct.

----

Which brings us back to the point: It might help to improve your spin points



Papa ObamaCare had less to do with health care than it did with
gov't interjection into the market;

Come no tort reform; tort lawyers are one of his biggest contributors
Secret deals with companies to increase their profits

Taxes collected before services provided to fluff the number with CBO

not good

 

[Neotrotsky]

Who made that cost so high

Who was the biggest factor in increasing the costs-

I love a good whodunit--especially when everyone's a suspect.

I hear you

but it is not everyone

 

[Greenbeard]

I meant to say why did they tried to exempt...

Except they didn't try to exempt themselves from anything. Is this point not getting through?

Papa ObamaCare had less to do with health care than it did with
gov't interjection into the market;

That "gov't interjection" is simply the creation of regulated health insurance exchanges, which you've already endorsed multiple times now. Paul Ryan's a huge fan of exchanges, and not just for seniors.

His own health reform proposal centered around--wait for it--state-based health exchanges, just like the ACA. See Title II of Ryan's bill. Surely Ryan isn't just looking to take over the market and institute single-payer, too, is he? Unless you think he's some kind of leftwing sleeper agent corrupting the Republican party from the inside. Is that it?

 

[Patrick2]

I thought that EVERYONE knew that that was based on double counting and other democrat accounting gimmicks!

A passage from the Big Book of Rightwing Cliches. Neat.

You can't refute the facts, you lose. Wish all obamabots would raise the white flag that quickly.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I meant to say why did they tried to exempt...

Except they didn't try to exempt themselves from anything. Is this point not getting through?

Papa ObamaCare had less to do with health care than it did with
gov't interjection into the market;

That "gov't interjection" is simply the creation of regulated health insurance exchanges, which you've already endorsed multiple times now. Paul Ryan's a huge fan of exchanges, and not just for seniors.

His own health reform proposal centered around--wait for it--state-based health exchanges, just like the ACA. See Title II of Ryan's bill. Surely Ryan isn't just looking to take over the market and institute single-payer, too, right? Unless you think he's some kind of leftwing sleeper agent corrupting the Republican party from the inside. Is that it?

I support moving already socialized system towards the market; sometimes you have to take the good with bad. It will take years to correct the Left's mishandling of medicare.


Papa ObamaCare's gov't interjection is more than just the exchanges
Plus his exchanges are bringing more socialized efforts into the market

Each plan moves in different directions

Plus, I do believe more side with me on this issue




again
ad nauseum
_________________

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

You'd think ignorance were a virtue. You'll start to get it when it's implemented- just like Nancy said. Now you're totally misled by bought off tools...
There is no "liberal" media to explain it anymore- just ratings mad corporate media and the Pub Propaganda machine, where "men decide the facts"- like Goebbel's and Stalin's...

The truthis liberal- try PBS.

 

[Greenbeard]

I support moving already socialized system towards the market; sometimes you have to take the good with bad.

I don't know how to interpret this. Are you saying exchanges are or are not markets? Do you approve or disapprove of Paul Ryan's proposal to organize the private insurance markets in states using state-based exchanges (similar to the ACA)?

Papa ObamaCare's gov't interjection is more than just the exchanges

What are you referring to?

Plus his exchanges are bringing more socialized efforts into the market

I don't know what this means. Buzzwords and gibberish do not a discussion make. What are you referring to?