What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

The problem with the education system is the students, ... and the parents, ... and the administrators, ... and the teachers.

;)

OK, OK, I'd vote that bad students are a product of bad parents, so the problem is only three-fold. :D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

The problem with the education system is the students, ... and the parents, ... and the administrators, ... and the teachers.

;)

OK, OK, I'd vote that bad students are a product of bad parents, so the problem is only three-fold. :D

Sure, and the problem with healthcare is sick people. I say we change Medicare now. Medicare under the ScoobyDoo plan now covers you from birth to 65. From 65 on you're on your own.

I just saved more money than Obama.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Sure, and the problem with healthcare is sick people. I say we change Medicare now. Medicare under the ScoobyDoo plan now covers you from birth to 65. From 65 on you're on your own.

I just saved more money than Obama.

Dude! You're a stinkin' genius! :D


But seriously, you might be on to something there. You get the free public ride until 65. You either save for "retirement health insurance" or you go Dirty Dancing with Patrick Swayze without it when you're old and grey.
 
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Sure, and the problem with healthcare is sick people. I say we change Medicare now. Medicare under the ScoobyDoo plan now covers you from birth to 65. From 65 on you're on your own.

Interesting. How about we cover them past 65, but the feds take out life insurance policies on them? When they die, by whatever means, the proceeds go to fund ... CIA? :eek: :D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm on the Scooby/Nathan "I hate kids" bandwagon.

My idea of Utopia is "Children of Men".
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

More...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/16/2072308.aspx


My take, which I've also seen written, is that the Dems now have 49Bn to work with to get the Rockefellers and liberal House Dems on board.

The opposition just got dealt a "left" hook right in the kisser. The one credible reason to oppose the bill was deficit concerns. Now that a benchmark has been established by an independent entity, it gets easier from here. Aside from Palin type nonsense, why would Blue Dog Dems, or moderates like Snowe & Collins, oppose a deficit reducing bill?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

More...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/16/2072308.aspx


My take, which I've also seen written, is that the Dems now have 49Bn to work with to get the Rockefellers and liberal House Dems on board.

The opposition just got dealt a "left" hook right in the kisser. The one credible reason to oppose the bill was deficit concerns. Now that a benchmark has been established by an independent entity, it gets easier from here. Aside from Palin type nonsense, why would Blue Dog Dems, or moderates like Snowe & Collins, oppose a deficit reducing bill?

Baucus is probably more pragamatic than some would suggest with the release of his proposal without some explicit GOP support. I suspect their will be a good amount of horsetrading in committee before the final vote, and there will be some GOP votes on his side. I think the abandonment of the public option is more a signal to moderate Dems and Reps that they at least have some common ground on which to build. From what I've read elsewhere some of the Pelosi campers are in a real tizzy, even though the public option was discarded months ago. If Baucus' bill doesn't gain traction, none of them will.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Sure, and maybe we shouldn't educate everyone as well. That's natural.

Educating the young = good investment. Paying for expensive treatments that extend overall life expectancy by a few months = luxury. If you can afford it, fine - have a ball. If not, don't use the government to take money from me to pay for it.

If I paid to design and build an expensive new airplane, you wouldn't claim that everyone has a right to use it and set up a government program to try to ensure universal access to it. Why is it any different if a company designs and builds an expensive new medical device?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Well THIS certainly changes things...

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/cbo-scores-the-baucus-plan/


CBO has Baucus bill reducing deficit by 49Bn first ten years, 900Bn next 10.

So for the skeptics out here, I'm curious if it changes any minds about the bill...

$4.9B per year? You can find more than that under the couch cushions in the Capitol. I'd say that's within the margin of error to just call it "deficit neutral," which is clearly better than it could be, but also not as good as it could be.

I also doubt that it's true. Government (even the CBO) is historically horrendous at estimating costs.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

$4.9B per year? You can find more than that under the couch cushions in the Capitol. I'd say that's within the margin of error to just call it "deficit neutral," which is clearly better than it could be, but also not as good as it could be.

I also doubt that it's true. Government (even the CBO) is historically horrendous at estimating costs.

Lynah, you've been reasonable out here, but give me a break. When the CBO estimates a big # for other bills, it was gospel for most anti-Obamacare people. Now the same office suddenly doesn't know what they're doing?

Furthermore, the plan covers 94% of legal citizens all the while reducing the deficit. Not to mention all the arguments about "what happens after 10 years". Well, according to the CBO, what happens in 900Bn in savings.

It sounds to me that nobody is going to be able to convince you that anything will reduce the deficit. That's your right, but it seems way too needlessly pessimistic IMHO.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

.......
The point is they'll drop these really expensive plans. They may have less coverage but it'll be more in line with most plans..

boy, won't all those union folks (those fools still lucky enough to be working AND the pension stiffs) be shocked!! they have the best, most expensive plans i know :p :p :p
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Lynah, you've been reasonable out here, but give me a break. When the CBO estimates a big # for other bills, it was gospel for most anti-Obamacare people. Now the same office suddenly doesn't know what they're doing?

You'll never, ever find a place where I treated a CBO number as gospel. I work in the defense industry. I know that a cost estimate is always just the starting baseline - things ALWAYS go up from there. Far better for the starting number to be zero than huge, but it's always just the start.

I just can't wrap my head around how these proposed plans are spinning straw into gold. We're essentially intantaneously going to give 40M more people access to health care (massive increase in demand), force insurers to take on pre-existing conditions (which they've never had to), etc, and somehow magically health insurers don't go out of business, health care premiums don't go up, and the deficit comes down. It just defies common sense.

What I actually think will happen instead is that the increased demand for health care services will put such a burden on suppliers that everyone's quality of care will go down. Pent-up demand for services that people had just been living with will be unleashed all at once as people with pre-existing conditions get back into the system, draining the financial reserves of health insurace companies. They also get hit with extra taxes on their high end plans for a double-whammy on costs. To remain solvent, they'll have to raise premiums, causing employers to dump plans outright or increase the costs paid by the employees. The resulting premiums will be high enough that very few plans will be available that are cheaper than simply paying the penalty for not having insurance, so a lot more people than projected will choose to pay the penalty and still head for the emergency rooms for care, so the plan will fail to lead to coverage for anywhere near the advertised 97%. An awful lot of people will end up paying more out of pocket for worse health care than they get today with only a modest increase in the total number of people covered.

If this plan passes, this is one of those situations where I'd be really, really happy to be wrong.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

the insurers will be so boxed in as far as what the product is that they're offering and what their costs will be, there will be practically no competition left in the market - and therefore less innovation.

what exactly is innovation in the insurance industry?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'd have to agree with LynahFan. Yes the CBO preliminary estimate is good news, but it would be a miracle if it turned out to be accurate. The government just isn't very good at calculating realistic estimates, even the CBO. It's pretty much a given that the final cost is going to exceed the estimate, probably significantly, for almost any government project. So while this CBO estimate sounds good, it's probably very optimistic to even call it deficit neutral.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Death panels?

it was a start.

(john silber, 1990: why is it that we spend 90% of our health care cost in our first two years of life and our last two years? when your old and you're ripe, it's time to go...)

[i can't believe he didn't get elected ;) ]
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

You'll never, ever find a place where I treated a CBO number as gospel. I work in the defense industry. I know that a cost estimate is always just the starting baseline - things ALWAYS go up from there. Far better for the starting number to be zero than huge, but it's always just the start.

I just can't wrap my head around how these proposed plans are spinning straw into gold. We're essentially intantaneously going to give 40M more people access to health care (massive increase in demand), force insurers to take on pre-existing conditions (which they've never had to), etc, and somehow magically health insurers don't go out of business, health care premiums don't go up, and the deficit comes down. It just defies common sense.

What I actually think will happen instead is that the increased demand for health care services will put such a burden on suppliers that everyone's quality of care will go down. Pent-up demand for services that people had just been living with will be unleashed all at once as people with pre-existing conditions get back into the system, draining the financial reserves of health insurace companies. They also get hit with extra taxes on their high end plans for a double-whammy on costs. To remain solvent, they'll have to raise premiums, causing employers to dump plans outright or increase the costs paid by the employees. The resulting premiums will be high enough that very few plans will be available that are cheaper than simply paying the penalty for not having insurance, so a lot more people than projected will choose to pay the penalty and still head for the emergency rooms for care, so the plan will fail to lead to coverage for anywhere near the advertised 97%. An awful lot of people will end up paying more out of pocket for worse health care than they get today with only a modest increase in the total number of people covered.

If this plan passes, this is one of those situations where I'd be really, really happy to be wrong.

Do we at least get to avoid cannibalism in your view?:confused: :eek: :cool:

I appreciate your concerns, but I'm curious if 1) there's any proposal out there that you do think would reduce costs, and 2) if there's anybody's estimate that you would believe if they said deficit neutral? Because if your answer is no to both questions, then what's your solution beyond the status quo which I don't believe you favor either.

PS - The CBO as gospel I wasn't attributing to you personally. However, any poster that did use it as a reason to criticize the House plan needs to go back and delete their posts. I suspect we won't be hearing from any of them until tomorrow morning after the Limbaugh show airs so they can have their talking points ready to explain away this one. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top