Curious to know what people here are saying.
In terms of sovereign debt outlook, the U.S. really needs to address it’s unfunded liabilities (social security, medicare, etc.) and budget deficits. What I would propose to solve this would be: 1. Reform social security into a define contribution instead of defined benefit plan; it’s unrealistic to continue this path with social security. 2. Allow people who do not have insurance or can not afford it to be qualified as poor and make Medicaid available to them (this would not be a free lunch because Medicaid is not accepted by all providers, so only the poor would see this as advantageous). 3. Pass a constitutional amendment forcing each administration to balance their budget over a period of 2 years. Similar to how some states must do. The U.S. has ran a budget deficit for every year since 1970 (except when Clinton Admin. balanced the budget). There is a systemic issue with the congressional expenditures that crosses every party line. None of this will happen due to politics and I foresee U.S. sovereign debt running into trouble in the future if these things are not addressed. What do you guys think?
Yes I do, for the sake of the millions who do not have the priviledges and opportunities I have had in my life.
No, because it’s not going to improve anything. BO attacks managed care and isn’t even close to having his facts straight
I presume it is not going to improve anything for me too - but it is for some one who can’t afford what you call managed health care.
Zokeseh: Yes or No? It’s a poll.
CBO estimates are pretty encouraging. 1 trillion dollars in savings? I’m a fan although I’m not all that well versed in the topic. I’m pretty sick of listening to Glen Beck and his crew of idiots that don’t understand it but still hate it.
I don’t support it.
I don’t support it. It’s not $1 trillion is savings–the CBO said it’s in the range of $100 billion of deficit cutting over the next 10 years. We know this will not happen because this assumes a double counting of Medicare (it’s an accounting trick–$500 billion of Medicare spending is simply shifted into this bill) and because a half of those alleged Medicare cuts comes from lowering reimbursements to doctors. Because this would essentially destroy the viability of Medicare, a secondary $208 billion bill to fix this reimbursement issue has been introduced in the House that the CBO estimates will net add $56 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. In addition, about half of the Medicare cuts are assumed to be found in cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” as if we couldn’t do that now! Dick Morris demonstrates in his book how the bill will actually cost about $6 trillion over 10 years. The CBO score is also based upon 10 years of revenue and 6 years of payments. That makes sense. Pretty easy to break even like that. The bill itself includes subsidizing health care for families making up to $88,300 and allows “children” to remain on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26. It also will guarantee rises in insurance premiums because it forces insurance companies to cover people with pre-conditions, it raises taxes on insurance companies, it raises taxes on medical devices, and it doesn’t allow insurance companies to charge people different rates because of their health. This will all necessarily require insurance rates to rise significantly. The bill still doesn’t cover something like 15 million people. The bill doesn’t reform the tort system. The bill doesn’t add cross state competition. And the bill shifts a ton of its costs onto states, which doesn’t show up in the CBO scoring. So the bill fails to reach universal coverage, the bill adds to the deficit OR the bill will destroy the efficacy of Medicare, the bill shifts more fiscal responsibility to bankrupt states, and the bill will run counter to the goal of lowering insurance costs. Not to mention that the federal mandate to purchase health insurance is clearly unconstitutional and will be challenged in court by the states (at least 36 states have threatened to sue).
Oh yeah, and the bill creates more than ONE HUNDRED new federal bureaucracies to enforce all of the new mandates! It’s estimated that it will require the hiring of 19,000 new IRS agents to enforce the insurance mandate! 19,000! Health care is going to turn into an even GREATER bureaucratic nightmare! Oh yeah, and you can face imprisonment for not buying health insurance! THIS BILL IS TERRIBLE. Nobody who has gotten into the facts of this bill could possibly support it!
Score update: Yes=2 No=4 Am a No as well. I like the intent, but the execution is bad. I too, like kkent, think that the aftermath is going to be a sorry state of affairs once the bill is passed.
I don’t know enough about it, but I share the same sentiment as JOE2010. Our being lucky enough to be born healthy, to live healthy (due to not suffering an accident or disease), and being in the position to get proper care is in large part due to pure luck - it’s not like we did anything special to be in the position we’re in now. However, I agree with sid3699 - I like the intent, the execution is bad and I’m afraid it would hurt both the sick and the healthy in the long run.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t support it. It’s not $1 trillion is > savings–the CBO said it’s in the range of $100 > billion of deficit cutting over the next 10 years. > We know this will not happen because this assumes > a double counting of Medicare (it’s an accounting > trick–$500 billion of Medicare spending is simply > shifted into this bill) and because a half of > those alleged Medicare cuts comes from lowering > reimbursements to doctors. Because this would > essentially destroy the viability of Medicare, a > secondary $208 billion bill to fix this > reimbursement issue has been introduced in the > House that the CBO estimates will net add $56 > billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. In > addition, about half of the Medicare cuts are > assumed to be found in cutting “waste, fraud and > abuse” as if we couldn’t do that now! Dick Morris > demonstrates in his book how the bill will > actually cost about $6 trillion over 10 years. > > The CBO score is also based upon 10 years of > revenue and 6 years of payments. That makes sense. > Pretty easy to break even like that. > > The bill itself includes subsidizing health care > for families making up to $88,300 and allows > “children” to remain on their parents’ insurance > until the age of 26. It also will guarantee rises > in insurance premiums because it forces insurance > companies to cover people with pre-conditions, it > raises taxes on insurance companies, it raises > taxes on medical devices, and it doesn’t allow > insurance companies to charge people different > rates because of their health. This will all > necessarily require insurance rates to rise > significantly. > > The bill still doesn’t cover something like 15 > million people. The bill doesn’t reform the tort > system. The bill doesn’t add cross state > competition. And the bill shifts a ton of its > costs onto states, which doesn’t show up in the > CBO scoring. So the bill fails to reach universal > coverage, the bill adds to the deficit OR the bill > will destroy the efficacy of Medicare, the bill > shifts more fiscal responsibility to bankrupt > states, and the bill will run counter to the goal > of lowering insurance costs. Not to mention that > the federal mandate to purchase health insurance > is clearly unconstitutional and will be challenged > in court by the states (at least 36 states have > threatened to sue). You may wish to read this before you post grotesque untruths here - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21kristof.html?ref=opinion
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t support it. It’s not $1 trillion is > savings–the CBO said it’s in the range of $100 > billion of deficit cutting over the next 10 years. > We know this will not happen because this assumes > a double counting of Medicare (it’s an accounting > trick–$500 billion of Medicare spending is simply > shifted into this bill) and because a half of > those alleged Medicare cuts comes from lowering > reimbursements to doctors. Because this would > essentially destroy the viability of Medicare, a > secondary $208 billion bill to fix this > reimbursement issue has been introduced in the > House that the CBO estimates will net add $56 > billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. In > addition, about half of the Medicare cuts are > assumed to be found in cutting “waste, fraud and > abuse” as if we couldn’t do that now! Dick Morris > demonstrates in his book how the bill will > actually cost about $6 trillion over 10 years. > > The CBO score is also based upon 10 years of > revenue and 6 years of payments. That makes sense. > Pretty easy to break even like that. > > The bill itself includes subsidizing health care > for families making up to $88,300 and allows > “children” to remain on their parents’ insurance > until the age of 26. It also will guarantee rises > in insurance premiums because it forces insurance > companies to cover people with pre-conditions, it > raises taxes on insurance companies, it raises > taxes on medical devices, and it doesn’t allow > insurance companies to charge people different > rates because of their health. This will all > necessarily require insurance rates to rise > significantly. > > The bill still doesn’t cover something like 15 > million people. The bill doesn’t reform the tort > system. The bill doesn’t add cross state > competition. And the bill shifts a ton of its > costs onto states, which doesn’t show up in the > CBO scoring. So the bill fails to reach universal > coverage, the bill adds to the deficit OR the bill > will destroy the efficacy of Medicare, the bill > shifts more fiscal responsibility to bankrupt > states, and the bill will run counter to the goal > of lowering insurance costs. Not to mention that > the federal mandate to purchase health insurance > is clearly unconstitutional and will be challenged > in court by the states (at least 36 states have > threatened to sue). You may wish to read this before you post grotesque untruths here - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21kristof.html?ref=opinion
I’m with kkent.
Umm, there’s not a single thing in that entire article that “disproved” a single thing I said—the entire article was a sob story about someone denied coverage. Do point out the “grotestque untruths” that I have stated. Does the bill or does the bill not include a Medicare accounting maneuver in the amount of $500 billion? Was a bill or was a bill not introduced in the amount of $208 billion to “fix” the current bill’s reimbursement issue with doctors and Medicare? Did the CBO or did the CBO not score this Medicare fix as making the net effect of the bills a net negative on the budget deficit? Does the bill or does it not SUBSIDIZE families making $88,300 per year? Does the bill or does it not SPECIFICALLY add more than 100 federal bureaucracies? Does the bill or does it not SPECIFICALLY deligate enormous costs to states? Wasn’t this the issue with the “Cornhusker Kickback” where Nebraska was exempted from these additional costs? Does the bill or does it not allow for people to be imprisoned for not purchasing health care? Have 3 dozen states or have they not threatened lawsuits over this bill? And I could go on.
Let’s also keep something in mind–there are 2 primary funding mechanisms for this bill that allegedly will reduce the deficit (ha!): 1) huge Medicare cuts starting very soon and 2) a 40%(!) tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans that are popular with unions (beginning in 2018). Neither of these funding mechanisms will be politically palitable after senior citizens decry the fact that they can’t find a single doctor who will take Medicare and after Democrats are pressed by unions who are getting absolutely hammered by the new tax. Once these 2 politically IMPOSSIBLE provisions are removed by FUTURE Congresses, this bill will be neck deep in the red and we’ll have trillions of dollars in ADDITIONAL unfunded entitelment liabilities. This is a political and mathematical certainty.
No for me.
Sublimity: Am putting you down for a Yes. If you are a No, please post again. Score update: Yes=3 No=6
While severely flawed, I think the plan is an improvement over the current system which is morally disgusting. But then again I’m a pinko-commie Canadian so you can take my opinion for what it’s worth.