Health Care Reform thread

[Rome]

The right seems more interested in calling the President a liar than they are actually fixing anything.    Doesn't surprise me a bit because (1) the rich don't see a problem with the health care system because they can afford whatever treatment they need and (2) many of them have huge amounts of stock in health care corporations and would likely lose a bulk of their wealth if the system was nationalized.

Either way I don't give two shteins about them or their rabid paranoia about Obama.  The system is farged up and it needs to be fixed before it bankrupts the country.   And that's precisely where we're headed if we don't significantly reduce health care costs that are spiraling out of control.

[bowzer]

Haven't heard from Bowser lately. He must be in D.C.

I was at Penn State for the weekend... tailgating and such... glad you missed me though sweetie.

[bowzer]

Shorebird, Obama and his minions think it's deficit neutral because he's going to get rid of all the inefficiences currently associated with Medicare.  He doesn't say how he's going to do this, but I guess he's figured out a way, because he is, after all, the savior. 

Republicans want health care reformed too.  We don't want a public option.  The marketplace thing he proposed, sounds like a good idea, in theory.  Obama needs to go in more detail about it.  But keep the public option out of it. 

[shorebird]

I'm saying, as all of you over and over again miss the point, that there is no way in hell this bill doesn't raise the deficit, so why would he state that it won't?

He's actually pointed out several ways that the bill will ideally not raise the deficit. The bill itself may cost money in some places but it is designed to lower costs in others. You grasp that right?

It really isn't that complex and I'm a little shocked that you seem to be incapable of recognizing that part of the point is to lower costs in certain areas to cover the extra expenidture in other areas.

Like this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302250.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

As for costs, not to worry. "Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan," Obama said. He pledged to "not sign a plan that adds one dime to our [budget] deficits -- either now or in the future." If you believe Obama, what's not to like? Universal insurance. Continued choice. Lower costs.

The problem is that you can't entirely believe Obama. If he were candid -- if we were candid -- we'd all acknowledge that the goals of our ideal health-care system collide. Perhaps we can have any two, but not all three.

No way. Won't happen. National health care is going to cost way, way more than what that will save.

http://www.examiner.com/x-23691-NY-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d14-The-economic-realities-of-health-insurance-reform

With debt projected to exceed $12.7 trillion this month and steadily growing to the point where it will likely exceed the country's gross domestic product in 2011, the nation cannot afford to undertake another costly initiative that would further diminish the prospect of long-term financial viability of the country. Obama stated that he would not sign a plan "that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future." However, his past actions indicate that he is willing to contradict himself, casting doubt as to his credibility and determination to maintain or reduce federal spending.

During his career as an Illinois Senator, Obama was critical of the Bush administration's failure to curtail a rising national debt and for raising the national debt limit.

"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren," Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership."

As President, Obama pledged to reduce the national debt, but his performance indicates that this promise may have been rhetorical.

The 2009 federal deficit is projected to reach a record $1.6 trillion under his leadership, as compared to $455 billion in 2008, President Bush's final year in office. During his eight-month tenure as President, Obama has signed several bills that significantly increased national debt, primarily the controversial economic stimulus legislation, which included "bailouts" of financial institutions, whose decision-making capabilities have been called into question, as well as Chrysler and General Motors, two of the least efficient automobile companies in the world. As a result, the national debt is projected to increase from slightly under $10 trillion at the end of 2008 to nearly $13 trillion by the end of this year, a record increase. Obama has already encouraged the Senate to pass legislation to raise the debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, indicating that he intends to implement more expensive programs without significantly reducing costs.

Facts, can you grasp that?

President Obama said the health insurance reform plan could be paid for by "finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse." He then identified Medicaid and Medicare, two government-run social insurance programs, as the primary wasteful programs that could be reformed in order to pay for the plan. By criticizing the inefficiencies of Medicaid and Medicare, President Obama indicted the federal government for its inability to manage health insurance programs.

Whether the President initially attempted to exaggerate what he termed a "crisis" and subsequently decided to use a smaller figure in an effort to alleviate concerns regarding the cost of the program, grossly miscalculated the estimates, or amended the bill to include fewer people is unclear; what is certain is that the federal government and bureaucracies which the President has deemed highly inefficient will be responsible for implementing a nearly trillion dollar program to cover at least 150% of those currently covered under existing government health insurance programs.

More facts.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/contrary-to-his-claims-obama-s-health-care-plan-would-increase-the-deficit

Obama told a joint session of Congress Wednesday night that "reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."

However, he offered few details for how those savings might be achieved, and he didn't mention the key plan - backed by Democrats in the House of Representatives - to raise revenue by imposing higher income taxes on the wealthy.

The unanswered questions about his plan's costs and its effects on the federal budget deficit, on existing federal health care programs, on potential inflation and on taxes all remained hurdles in the path of congressional approval.

Few analysts are optimistic that Obama can trim enough spending from the government's current health care programs to pay for "most" of his health care overhaul, largely because Congress is likely to be reluctant to go along with such deep cuts.

Deficit hits record high. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/federal-deficit-hits-record-high-of-138-trillion-in-august.html

Since being voted into office, he has raised the deficit to a record number higher and quicker than any of his predecessors and it's still going up. But yet, with national health care, the sheeple all believe that it won't happen even though there are numerous anylist and experts who say other wise.

Baaaaaa.

[rjs246]

My point, mister condescending assbag, is that what he is trying to do is improve costs and service and he has presented ways that he hopes to pay for the additional service and ways that he hopes will save money and improve efficiency. If congress doesn't go along with it that isn't his fault. But to dismiss increased efficiency and decreased waste as impossible is laughable.

[rjs246]

Oops. Almost there.

[bowzer]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auZYSu9ljFUs

Ooops.  Not with a public option.

[bowzer]

Hahahahahahaha... where do I get that sign?

[rjs246]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auZYSu9ljFUs

Ooops.  Not with a public option.

Who cares? Not I.

Just to clarify. I think that the public option is the best possible option for driving consumer costs down and I think it's the only way to get 'universal' coverage. But I don't really care that much how they do it. Co-ops are an acceptable compromise. A trigger option is an acceptable compromise. Why would I or anyone else truly give a shtein about a 'public' option as long as the end results are positive? I swear some people get catch phrases stuck in their heads and can't think their way around them...

[bowzer]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auZYSu9ljFUs

Ooops.  Not with a public option.

Who cares? Not I.

That's one of the main issues with the health care reform.  Republicans don't want a public option, and the libs are trying to force it.

[shorebird]

Oops. Almost there.

Iowa GOP Sen. Charles Grassley, also part of the negotiations, said he wanted to see the overall price lowered in light of skyrocketing federal budget deficits. He indicated that there were "five to six unresolved issues" but expressed some optimism that they could be overcome.

Conrad has proposed creating nonprofit health insurance cooperatives as an alternative to the government-funded public health insurance option included in legislation favored by the House Democratic leadership.

Republicans unanimously oppose the public option as an unfair competitor that would drive private insurers out of the market, which they say would bring a government takeover of health care.

Democratic supporters reject that claim as misinformation, saying a nonprofit public option would be one choice for consumers who also could sign up for private coverage.

Obama, a supporter of the public option, cited the idea of cooperatives as a possible middle-ground in his speech to Congress.

One senior Democratic lawmaker, however, promised Sunday that the Senate's health care bill would include a public option that would have support from "some" Republicans.

Almost there?  You're reading that a whole lot different than I did even before you posted  the updated article. A whole lot of maybe's and if's.

[shorebird]

My point, mister condescending assbag, is that what he is trying to do is improve costs and service and he has presented ways that he hopes to pay for the additional service and ways that he hopes will save money and improve efficiency. If congress doesn't go along with it that isn't his fault. But to dismiss increased efficiency and decreased waste as impossible is laughable.

Blah blah blah. You keep saying the same thing, just a little differently, even after having been shown facts to the contrary.

[bowzer]

My point, mister condescending assbag, is that what he is trying to do is improve costs and service and he has presented ways that he hopes to pay for the additional service and ways that he hopes will save money and improve efficiency. If congress doesn't go along with it that isn't his fault. But to dismiss increased efficiency and decreased waste as impossible is laughable.

Blah blah blah. You keep saying the same thing, just a little differently, even after having been shown facts to the contrary.

But.. but ... but... Obama is so convincing in his speeches! He can't be lying...even if what he promises makes absolutely no sense.. and he has no facts to back any of his "deficit neutral" claims.

[rjs246]

None of the 'facts' you've presented actually prove me wrong or you right. In fact, most of them aren't even facts:

- Your first article above is an op-ed in the Post. It's an opinion piece. No facts outside of quotes.
- The second, from the Examiner, is also an opinion piece. It talks about the national debt, which isn't up for debate. Everyone knows what it is and why it is where it is. It doesn't present any facts stating unequivocally that health care reform will lead to a larger deficit.
- The third article is the same 'few analysts are optimistic...' hardly qualifies as cold hard facts refuting anything the president has said.

What you're doing is reading right-leaning opinion pieces as though they were scientifically unbiased research papers full of immutable facts.

My advice is to get off of my johnson and take a deep breath. I've already said repeatedly that I don't like the bill that I've read (and read about) as it exists. There are a lot of ways to improve it and some obvious things that could be done to save more money. You seem to think that I'm just closing my eyes and suckling the teet of whatever bill comes out of the House... actually, farg it, that's not even true. Every one of your posts just reeks of affected conservative anger. The right is irrationally convinced that we're all going to hell and that this abstract concept of a national deficit is ushering us there. It's insane. Countries have carried debt greater than ours throughout history. Get a farging grip.

[bowzer]

I posted a neutral fact check after Obama's speech and the response I got was.. "who cares?"