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

[Kepler]

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

edit: This is the graph I was thinking of

The other other takeaway is everybody craters at the beginning unless the country is attacked, and everybody craters at the end unless he screws an intern or has poor motor function.

 

[Handyman]

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

good eye - that is interesting. Maybe there's something to this "increasingly bitter polarization" stuff we've been hearing. Were the WWII gen and boomers more patriotic to the point of increased presidential support across the board?

No I dont think that is it I think skepticism and cynicism are just too high and instead of the media ignoring that (amongst other things) like they may have in the early part of the century now they embrace and market TOWARDS it. Do you think Fox News or MSNBC would have flown during the FDR administration? It is one thing for the haters to hate, it is another for "news" outlets to cover them non-stop and give them pulpits on a daily basis.

 

[Kepler]

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

No I dont think that is it I think skepticism and cynicism are just too high and instead of the media ignoring that (amongst other things) like they may have in the early part of the century now they embrace and market TOWARDS it. Do you think Fox News or MSNBC would have flown during the FDR administration? It is one thing for the haters to hate, it is another for "news" outlets to cover them non-stop and give them pulpits on a daily basis.

Harry Chandler's LA Times did nothing but attack FDR and the New Deal for the entire Roosevelt Administration. I'm sure there were plenty of others, as well. I have a collection of newspaper front pages and most of the western papers were running articles like "Is FDR a Communist?" right next to the column on Pearl Harbor or VE Day.

Twas ever thus.

 

[Handyman]

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

Yes and during the Lincoln Administration he was ripped to shreds...

Plus, once again no matter how much they might have ripped him they never attacked his disabilities which today would be cannon fodder. How about JFK and his need to populate a whole new Camelot...vastly ignored. Politics was fair game but there were limits. Do you think that would fly today? There are people STILL saying Obama is a Muslim, Obama isn't American and it isnt hyperbole THEY THINK IT IS TRUE! There are movies made and protests by people who think Bush orchestrated the WTC attack. His daughters every move was attacked and papparazied like they were Paris Hilton. (they used a fake id to drink in college OMG!!!11!!1) There is no line anymore, it isnt about politics only it is anything and everything. And it isnt just blogs, the "real news" does it too. ABC did a story on Bush that was patently false based on zero evidence.

There is no news anymore, it is all about yelling louder than everyone else.

 

[walrus]

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

, it is all about yelling louder than everyone else.

Just like the Cafe on USCHO

 

[Handyman]

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

Just like the Cafe on USCHO

BINGO!

 

[Kepler]

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

Hey now. Some of the personal attacks around here are softly spoken.

 

[Rover]

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

Back on subject, CBO says Baucus bill after amendments still deficit reducer while covering 94% of the population. What exactly are the objections again?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33214671

Bob Dole also joins Frist and Tommy Thompson in support of Obamacare, over the objections of Sen Majority Leader McConnell.

 

[dropthatpuck]

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

Back on subject, CBO says Baucus bill after amendments still deficit reducer while covering 94% of the population. What exactly are the objections again?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33214671

Bob Dole also joins Frist and Tommy Thompson in support of Obamacare, over the objections of Sen Majority Leader McConnell.

Tell me, boy wonder.....if we have new spending of $829b over 10 years for this program and the CBO says we'll reduce the deficit by $81b over 10 years....how is it that you can't figure out that math?

Reduce the deficit by $8.1 billion per year, but spend an additional $82.9 billion per year?

Even if you factor in the gutting of medicaid over 10 years at $500b to help pay for this, it's just shifting money.

Never, ever, will we reduce our debt or deficits with this plan. Historical government budgets put that $8.1b well within the realm of moving from black to red.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Back on subject, CBO says Baucus bill after amendments still deficit reducer while covering 94% of the population. What exactly are the objections again?

That America is supposed to be a land of opportunities, not guaranteed outcomes handed out by a nanny state?

Cheesy analogy, but you don't build a strong army by having new recruits sit around in a circle talking about what it's like to be good soldiers - you put them through the ringer of boot camp so they develop toughness and discipline. We're not going to create an empowered, disciplined citizenry by handing them free health care (via tax credits) to go with their welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. If we didn't have those programs, would there be some people who really did try hard and fell through the cracks due to pure chance? Yes. But the liberals' obsession with having the government provide a basic subsistence living for every every single person living in the US is 1) doomed to failure anyway, and 2) makes things worse for most Americans - the good of the few at the expense of the many. It just doesn't make sense to me. The US Government is supposed to be looking out for the general welfare, not trying to save every baby bird that falls from a tree.

 

[Rover]

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

That America is supposed to be a land of opportunities, not guaranteed outcomes handed out by a nanny state?

Government isn't taking over health care however. What its doing is expanding access generally for low income people, and also putting in some rules so that insurers can't pick and choose only the healthiest people to give insurance to.

Philosophically you seem to be saying nobody gets Medicare/Medicaid. I completely disagree that the elderly should be responsible for their own health insurance and if they can't get any or afford it too bad if that is indeed what you're trying to say.

Tell me, boy wonder.....if we have new spending of $829b over 10 years for this program and the CBO says we'll reduce the deficit by $81b over 10 years....how is it that you can't figure out that math?

Reduce the deficit by $8.1 billion per year, but spend an additional $82.9 billion per year?

Even if you factor in the gutting of medicaid over 10 years at $500b to help pay for this, it's just shifting money.

Never, ever, will we reduce our debt or deficits with this plan. Historical government budgets put that $8.1b well within the realm of moving from black to red.

Its a simple concept sparky. The savings and tax on insurance companies for super-expensive plans pays for the reform effort, and then some (the deficit reducing part of the estimate). Sorry that the Dems pulled this off on you, but oh well. Funny how when the CBO said one of the Dem House committee's plans would cost 1.5T, their estimate was Gospel. Now when the very same office says a different plan is a deficit reducer, suddenly they're in the tank/can't be believed/etc. Pretty amusing from where I sit.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Government isn't taking over health care however. What its doing is expanding access generally for low income people, and also putting in some rules so that insurers can't pick and choose only the healthiest people to give insurance to.

I realize that - but they are requiring people to buy health care, and then turning around and giving lots of people the money they'll use to buy it with. The end result is the same - the government is using tax dollars from A to provide free health care for B. "Free" here in the sense that B doesn't pay for it, obviously.

Philosophically you seem to be saying nobody gets Medicare/Medicaid. I completely disagree that the elderly should be responsible for their own health insurance and if they can't get any or afford it too bad if that is indeed what you're trying to say.

Well, philosophically, I think that is a good goal. But I'm also a pragmatist and I DON'T have a problem with the government looking out for the general welfare. Society probably is better off with some sort of public health option for seniors - and enough better off that it justifies the costs.

But try this thought experiment: in 1970 (about when Medicare was enacted), the life expectancy of a 65 year old (age of eligibility) was about 13 more years. In 2004, the life expectancy of a 65 year old was about 17 years. (life expectancy data from here) Then, according to this, spending per beneficiary in 1970 was less than $2,000 (in 2008 dollars) while now it is more than $10,000 per beneficiary. So even if you attribute that 4 year increase in life expectancy ENTIRELY to Medicare (which is of course, ridiculous), that's a 5-fold increase in spending per beneficiary to extend the life expectancy by a mere 4 years. And from here, "Medicare spending for beneficiaries in their last year of life is on average four times greater than for all other beneficiaries." So a huge chunk of the costs clearly don't extend lives - they're spent on people who are already dying. How much better off does this drastically increased spending on minor increases in life expectancy REALLY make society? Is this REALLY something we should be devoting our limited resources to?

I love(d) my grandparents as much as the next guy, and I hope my one remaining grandfather is around for many more years. And if he gets to a point where he can't afford good health care, I would absolutely do everything *I* could to help him out financially. But I wouldn't send federal agents over to YOUR house to demand money from you at gunpoint to pay for it, which is exactly what Medicare does.

 

[dropthatpuck]

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

Its a simple concept sparky. The savings and tax on insurance companies for super-expensive plans pays for the reform effort, and then some (the deficit reducing part of the estimate). Sorry that the Dems pulled this off on you, but oh well. Funny how when the CBO said one of the Dem House committee's plans would cost 1.5T, their estimate was Gospel. Now when the very same office says a different plan is a deficit reducer, suddenly they're in the tank/can't be believed/etc. Pretty amusing from where I sit.

Well, the amusing place where you sit is another matter entirely and I'm not ready to start talking magic wands and pixy dust today.

"Super expensive"? The only peeps that have those plans are Federal workers....or, more likely, this hasn't even been defined yet or no one knows because no one has read the legislation.

The Dems haven't pulled anything off except another lead up to another smoke and mirrors show - much like this administrations other efforts.

 

[MinnFan]

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

Back on subject, CBO says Baucus bill after amendments still deficit reducer while covering 94% of the population. What exactly are the objections again?

How about the fact that premiums will go up along with taxes.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

How about the fact that premiums will go up along with taxes.

Premiums will go up isn't an argument. Premiums have been going up at a rate way past inflation for years, if that wasn't the case then this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[Kepler]

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

But the liberals' obsession with having the government provide a basic subsistence living for every every single person living in the US is 1) doomed to failure anyway, and 2) makes things worse for most Americans - the good of the few at the expense of the many. It just doesn't make sense to me. The US Government is supposed to be looking out for the general welfare, not trying to save every baby bird that falls from a tree.

I disagree with all of this. Aside from "obsession" being a loaded term that detracts from the honesty of your argument, the goal of guaranteed basic subsistence is practical, achievable, and laudable -- while it may never truly cover everyone, the attempt is important and salutory. It makes life "worse" for every single person living in the US only in the way that any shared cost does and it is by definition not targeted to only a pre-selected few -- a safety net potentially benefits everyone because everyone can be seriously hurt by an emergency. Is FEMA bad because only a small percentage of the population will be hit by natural disasters in their lifetimes?

Is it fair to say your unstated axiom is that everyone who finds themselves without the means to pay their way deserves it?

 

[Rover]

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

Lynah, to your point that Medicare has grown too fast, 100% agree. That's why this bill is taking steps to reign in cost. We can debate all day whether they will reign in costs or not. Its a similar discussion going on as was 15 years ago when Clinton was pushing his deficit reduction bill. Plenty of naysayers saying no way this leads to surpluses. They were wrong, but only proven so in time.

Similarly, we're not going to know if the cost reduction items in this bill (independent commission recommending savings, payment for overall treatment not by office visit, less ER visits for non-critical care, etc) until some time has passed. I do believe its a good faith effort to find cost savings, and its pretty rare for any political party to stake its future on a big policy initiative when being timid probably is a more successful electoral strategy. If anything needs adjusting, and I'm sure it will, it can be addressed in subsequent legislation.

As far as making people buy healthcare, if it could be done that they never used the ER or any other care that's then passed on to the taxpayers, that would be great. Since that's impossible to set up, the next best thing is to have them carry insurance, just like you have to for a car even if you have a perfect driving record and rarely go anywhere.

dtp, I can sense your desperation. 2 months ago it was heady days for knuckledraggers, as an Astro-turf effort was under way and Congressmen were rudely shouted down by crackpots in staged protests. What a difference a few months makes. Now the GOP is desperately trying to hold its members in line, as their one decent rational for blocking action just got obliterated by the CBO. Not to mention party elders (Dole, Frist, Thompson) are all coming out in favor of the legislation. Basically, opposition just for the sake of opposing anything from the Dems is now doomed. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with next. I'm sure Sarah Palin has some doozies coming up for the rest of you to parrot out here.

 

[LynahFan]

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

I disagree with all of this. Aside from "obsession" being a loaded term that detracts from the honesty of your argument, the goal of guaranteed basic subsistence is practical, achievable, and laudable -- while it may never truly cover everyone, the attempt is important and salutory. It makes life "worse" for every single person living in the US only in the way that any shared cost does and it is by definition not targeted to only a pre-selected few -- a safety net potentially benefits everyone because everyone can be seriously hurt by an emergency. Is FEMA bad because only a small percentage of the population will be hit by natural disasters in their lifetimes?

Fair enough on the "obsession" point - my bad. And no, FEMA is not inherently bad because only a few people will benefit from it. But if FEMA were spending exorbitant amounts of money to make sure that every prize rose bush and manicured lawn were restored to status quo ante, then I think we would both agree that THAT would be bad. The optimum is somewhere in the middle of that gigantic range, which comes down to a policy discussion. The same for Medicare. I think a safety net for seniors should exist, but I don't think it should be used as a normal way of conducting business, and I don't think it should pay for nearly as much as it does today, as much of it clearly does not do much good in terms of extending people's lives. Exactly where to draw that line is again a policy discussion, but I think it's pretty clear which side of the optimal line we're currently on.

Is it fair to say your unstated axiom is that everyone who finds themselves without the means to pay their way deserves it?

Absolutely not. For some, sure - if they gamble away their fortune or decide that getting high is more important than getting an education, yes. But I certainly believe there are lots of people who end up that way purely by chance, so it would not be correct to say I believe that "everyone" who finds themselves there deserves it.

So before you ask, yes: I think people can end up there by chance, and no, I still don't think the federal government should bear the responsibility to try to help them. That's like sending an aircraft carrier to rescue a drowning swimmer - sometimes a rowboat is a more appropriate solution. I think private charitable organizations should fill that role, and I feel pretty confident that I've backed up that view throughout my life by my actions in supporting such charities through my donations of time, talents, and money. For example, check out Friends in Need, which was started by some MD friends of mine for providing care to those without insurance in my hometown area - one of the charities I still support even though I don't live there any more.

 

[dropthatpuck]

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

Premiums will go up isn't an argument. Premiums have been going up at a rate way past inflation for years, if that wasn't the case then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Of course it's an argument. When has the government *ever* controlled costs of *anything* better than the private sector?

You're delusional if you think premiums and/or taxes won't increase exponentially more for a government run program vs. a private one....not to mention the monster-sized bureaucracy that will be created and need to be funded by us to run this thing.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Of course it's an argument. When has the government *ever* controlled costs of *anything* better than the private sector?

You're delusional if you think premiums and/or taxes won't increase exponentially more for a government run program vs. a private one....not to mention the monster-sized bureaucracy that will be created and need to be funded by us to run this thing.

LOL. Stuff like this is so hilarious. Social Security runs a hell of a lot cheaper than my local HMO does. It doesn't have CEO bonuses either. Try again.