Senate Health bill

[WildCat]

I think you misread my post. I'm pointing out that the many of the critics of the process being used currently were supporters of these large bills passed with the same or worse procedures in the past. If you want to disagree with the bill on its merits, that's one thing, but I have no sympathy for people who object to the process.

Why can't I object to both? It's the process that leads to this horrible bill.

Not that I'm any fan of the status quo, but do you have anything constructive to suggest as far as getting past the fundamental disagreements here? (And I'm not even talking about partisan disagreements, because this is largely just betwen the liberal vs. "moderate" Democrats.)

I'd love for the opinion of the Catholic Church not to matter in the process, but apparently it does.

Wouldn't it be great if they decided to do what's best for Americans, rather than to do what's best for their corporate campaign donors and big-money lobbying groups?

It's actually even worse than that, as shown by how it just takes a bribe campaign donation to Harkin in order to get quackery covered by taxpayers. The rest go along because they know Harkin will return the favor when their palms get greased.

"The best we can do".

 

[Thunder]

Progressive liberals won't love this plan cause it has no public-option.

Conservative Republicans won't love this plan because it includes government intervention.

So as far as I am concerned, this MUST be a good plan, since it is not liked by folks who tend to put ideology over America's best interest.

 

[T.A.M.]

I can't believe how much American Politicians have ****ed up the opportunity to provide health care to all Americans.

TAM

 

[Thunder]

here's a solution: scrap NASA...use the money to pay for universal health care for all Americans.

 

[WildCat]

here's a solution: scrap NASA...use the money to pay for universal health care for all Americans.

Great idea parky! That's $58.67 per person, now all you need to do is find the other $6,942 or so.

 

[Thunder]

Great idea parky!

I knew you'd come around some day.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

here's a solution: scrap NASA...use the money to pay for universal health care for all Americans.

Scrap one of the most important institutions on the planet? Yeah, that'll help.

 

[Cynic]

Gotta say, NASA's too important to scrap, or even underfund. Random commitment to NASA is one of my pet peeves.

 

[Ducky]

OMG! STOP STEALING MONEY FROM MEDICARE TO FUND SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!






flame war by ***hats that think I am serious in 3....2...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

here's a solution: scrap NASA...use the money to pay for universal health care for all Americans.

I don't think it's necessary. I think we could adopt a true single payer system that would cost less than what we as a nation currently spend.

At any rate, even this compromise, health insurance reform bill won't require cutting NASA. Unless the last round of changes severely change the CBO estimates we should get pretty soon, it's expected to decrease the deficit over the first 10 years.

Remember, when critics talk about the x trillion dollar "cost" of the program, that's just talking about how much the government will be spending--it is not the net effect to the budget. That will at least be zero, and probably less than that (unless you buy into BaC's CBO conspiracy theory).

 

[WildCat]

Unless the last round of changes severely change the CBO estimates we should get pretty soon, it's expected to decrease the deficit over the first 10 years.

It's accurate but misleading. This is because it will start collecting the money for it immediately (in 2010), but not start paying money out until 2014. It's an accounting trick.

 

[Uzzy]

NASA's budget is around $17.6 billion, going up yearly. (Source - PDF)

By comparison, the USS Gerald R Ford will cost around $14 Billion, on it's own. Hell, Missile Defence is going to cost around $10 Billion this year alone. (Source-PDF)

Just saying that there are perhaps more obvious places to save money, rather then scrapping, as Undesired Walrus mentioned, the one of the most important institutions on the planet.

 

[WildCat]

NASA's budget is around $17.6 billion, going up yearly. (Source - PDF)

By comparison, the USS Gerald R Ford will cost around $14 Billion, on it's own. Hell, Missile Defence is going to cost around $10 Billion this year alone. (Source-PDF)

Just saying that there are perhaps more obvious places to save money, rather then scrapping, as Undesired Walrus mentioned, the one of the most important institutions on the planet.

Find 600 or so more programs like those to eliminate and you've paid for UHC in America!

 

[Thunder]

Find 600 or so more programs like those to eliminate and you've paid for UHC in America!

did you light your Hannukah candles yet?

oh...i forgot. someone might see.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's accurate but misleading. This is because it will start collecting the money for it immediately (in 2010), but not start paying money out until 2014. It's an accounting trick.

Nonsense. See the other recent thread.

It would be misleading not to count the first 4 years. And, the report on the previous version of the Senate's bill, doesn't show a trend that the first 5 years is all gain and the second five is all loss.

In fact, it shows a break down of net effect to the deficit year by year with an increase in the deficit in 4 of the years (2010, 2016, 2017 & 2018). The net of the 10 years is -$130 billion (see Tables 1 and 2). It also says, "Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $491 billion and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $238 billion."

No tricks. No conspiracy.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

In the report on the House bill, there is language that says beyond the first 10 years, the bill is still estimated to cause a net reduction on the budget, but that far off, all estimates become very uncertain.

 

[WildCat]

Nonsense. See the other recent thread.

It would be misleading not to count the first 4 years. And, the report on the previous version of the Senate's bill, doesn't show a trend that the first 5 years is all gain and the second five is all loss.

In fact, it shows a break down of net effect to the deficit year by year with an increase in the deficit in 4 of the years (2010, 2016, 2017 & 2018). The net of the 10 years is -$130 billion (see Tables 1 and 2). It also says, "Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $491 billion and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $238 billion."

No tricks. No conspiracy.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

In the report on the House bill, there is language that says beyond the first 10 years, the bill is still estimated to cause a net reduction on the budget, but that far off, all estimates become very uncertain.

I don't buy it Joe. I don't think the penalties for failure to buy insurance are nearly high enough to compel people to buy it on their own for starters, and that's just one of the questionable assumptions the CBO makes.

Time will tell.

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

While this process has been disgraceful, it hasn't been nearly so disgraceful as not talking about it at all for all those years. If anything is disgraceful, it's people with the power to do something about a problem who refuse to do it because it isn't convenient to them.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

BTW, y'all are so screwed. We - in Sweden - have "free at the point of delivery" health care and do not have to sell our houses, boats, or grandmas, or deny our children education if we're (for example) taken ill. Oh, by the way, education up to (and including) University level is "free at the point of delivery" here too. I'm a PhD so eat that! I will gladly pay a little more taxes to be able to be who I FRIGGING am (my parents were not rich).

Screw you some more, conservatives; I'm going home. You are bad people who need to be ignored.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't buy it Joe. I don't think the penalties for failure to buy insurance are nearly high enough to compel people to buy it on their own for starters, and that's just one of the questionable assumptions the CBO makes.

Where in the CBO reports is that assumption made?

ETA: BTW nice evasion from the point you raised but choose not to defend: the idea that doing an estimate of the effect on the federal budget over 10 years is somehow a gimmick or a trick.

 

[WildCat]

Where in the CBO reports is that assumption made?

ETA: BTW nice evasion from the point you raised but choose not to defend: the idea that doing an estimate of the effect on the federal budget over 10 years is somehow a gimmick or a trick.

It makes a lot of questionable assumptions, about the rate of health care cost inflation, the numbers who will remain uninsured, the subsidies which will be required.

This is the same CBO that said the stimulus would would result in an unemployment rate of between 7.7% and 8.5% by the end of 2009.

Seriously Joe, do you think a $750 penalty (or whatever it is now) for failing to buy (at least) $3,600 worth of insurance, combined with a requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, will compel anyone to buy health insurance? Frankly, I'd be surprised if people currently buying it don't drop their coverage knowing they can just buy it again once they get sick.

Even by Congressional standards, this bill is a stinker all around. No other country with UHC does it in such a mindless and stupid fashion.

But it's "the best we can do"?