Good news about health care in the U.S.: The case for Obama’s health care reforms


Here’s a preview of another piece of television that many Republicans hope you will not bother to see, a piece that explains exactly how and why the health care reforms championed by President Obama will help you and millions of others:

Program: U.S. Health Care: The Good News

Episode: The Good News in American Medicine

Journalist T.R. Reid examines communities in America where top-notch medical care is available at reasonable costs and, in some instances, can be accessed by almost all residents. Included: Mesa County, Colo.; Seattle; Everest, Wash.; Hanover, N.H. In Mesa County, for instance, doctors, hospitals and insurers place an emphasis on prevention; and a program that offers pre-natal care to poor women has proved popular.

T. R. Reid’s report started airing on PBS stations in mid-February.  If you haven’t seen it, go to this site to view the entire production.

More, resources (suggested by PBS, mostly):

About these ads

56 Responses to Good news about health care in the U.S.: The case for Obama’s health care reforms

  1. And why does the GOP want to do this? Because they’ve been hijacked and taken over by a bunch of Ayn Rand fanatics and people who can only be described as satanists. Because Lavay Satanists belief boils down to “I got mine. **** you.”

    Like this

  2. Joe writes:
    The plan moves these two groups to Medicare and Medicaid,

    Sorry, Joe, I didn’t see this before. But let me shoot a hole in it for you.

    Do you know what the Ryan Plan does to medicare and medicaid?

    Well let me buy you a clue. The Ryan plan limits government spending to 4% of the GDP. Now you may think that’s fine but here’s the rub. The military share of the budget alone is 4% of the country’s GDP.

    So that means there would be no money for medicare or medicaid. At all. Nor would there be money for the VA, the federal court system, the EPA, the FDIC, the SEC, the NIH, CDC, FBI, NSA, CIA…etc. In fact the government would not be able to spend money doing anything other then the military.

    And the medicare plan..or rather the “oh lets give everyone coupons” plan is particularly stupid since it limits increasing the amount of the “vouchers” to “the rate of inflation plus 1%” That and it trusts the insurance companies to give insurance to old people when the insurance companies have historically and flatly refused to do that.

    Now the problem with this is two fold. One there hasn’t been inflation in years. And secondly…just this year alone insurance premiums are going to increase by 10%.

    Meaning, Joe, that any increase in the amount of those vouchers will never ever… ever…match or exceed the percentage of health insurance premium increases.

    Then there is the “oh lets cut government spending by 5 trillion dollars but give the rich a 4 trillion dollar tax cut” Which means that the Ryan plan is demanding that the middle class and the poor, in effect, pony up 4 trillion dollars to give the rich a tax cut..which will do absolutely nothing to benefit the country or the middle class and the poor. THe rich no more need a tax cut, Joe, then you need a heart attack.

    And sorry, your side does not get to claim that it’s oh so interested in cutting government spending to deal with the debt and the deficit when 1: your side absolutely refuses to cut the military spending by any amount and is 2: attempting to cut food stamps to poor people to not only protect the military from any cuts but to actually increase military spending over and above what the Pentagon is requesting. and then there is 3: your side absolutely refuses to cut any government spending that benefits corporations or the rich. and 4: your side refuses to get rid of any of the tax cuts to the rich or to businesses and refuses to get rid of any of the tax loopholes to the same.

    Your side isn’t interested in dealing with the deficit and the debt…your side is interested in using those as excuses to so completely **** over the middle class and the poor and turn this into a country of “for the rich, by the rich, of the rich.” In other words, Joe, your party is trying to turn the United States into a fascist corptocracy/oligarchy.

    Like this

  3. To quote:
    There should be less government involvement in our healthcare plans, I don’t see why they keep trying to stick their hands in everything. The insurance companies are messed up right now, and should be reviewed, but they shouldn’t be forcing government healthcare on everyone.

    First off…noone is forcing government healthcare on anyone. Unless you count medicare and if you have a problem with medicare then you’re an idiot.

    Secondly..we’ve had “less government involvment in our healthcare” from when the Republicans killed CLinton’s attempt at healthcare reform to well..now…and the result has been a health care system that has gotten worse and worse unless you’re lucky enough to be rich. Which most of us are not.

    Third..every other industrialized country on the planet has some form of “government healthcare” for everyone and they all have better health care, healthier people and do it far cheaper then we do…and you have a problem with that? Based on what? You want to pay more for health care just to exercise a dimwitted piece of ideology?

    Fourth, “obamacare” is almost exactly what the Republicans proposed 18 years ago when they killed Clinton’s health care reform attempt. It is not “government run health care” by any means.

    We should remain with for profit health care for what damn reason? Because it’s not that Obama’s health care reform did too much..it’s that it doesn’t do enough.

    Trusting the health insurance companies has been an unmitigated disaster for the vast majority of the people in this country. You simply don’t trust a company to do the right thing when their purpose is to make money and they lose money if they have to pay for your health care. You getting sick costs health insurance companies money which is why they have very little reason to get their act together and act like you want to pretend they will. Their profit is made by doing absolutely nothing to help you.

    But I find it cute that the party who so kvetches about “government run health care” sees fit to demand that women have a vaginal probe stuck up their vagina’s against their will.

    Like this

  4. Johnny says:

    There should be less government involvement in our healthcare plans, I don’t see why they keep trying to stick their hands in everything. The insurance companies are messed up right now, and should be reviewed, but they shouldn’t be forcing government healthcare on everyone.

    Like this

  5. lowerleavell says:

    I’m not sure if you saw this or not, but the Ryan plan reflects the recommendation of the CBO.

    “The figures come from the Congressional Budget Office’s annual report to Congress, “Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options.” Among options it presented this year to the new Congress for reducing VA spending is one to close enrollment in VA care for all veterans in groups 7 and 8 and to cancel the enrollment of veterans currently in two low priority groups.”

    The plan moves these two groups to Medicare and Medicaid, which is cheaper than VA care (apparently). Still not a fan, as I wish we could do more to take care of EVERY veteran who picks up a gun in my defense, but either way, Republican or Democrat, things are going to get harder for our vets.

    Like this

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    Difference is, of course, that Ryan proposes to shaft veterans with glee that the U.S. government will be weakened. Obama’s proposal is a pragmatic one, designed to prevent even greater damage to the health care plans of the military, and to prevent further damage to the nation.

    Like this

  7. lowerleavell says:

    Here is an article that details why I don’t support Obamacare.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/03/ten-ways-that-obamacare-is-bad

    Like this

  8. lowerleavell says:

    So we’re all in agreement that both parties are wrong for proposing to dramatically raise rates on our military? Good news.

    Starting to see why I’m not excited about either party?

    James, the executive branch usually sends congress an annual budget proposal which includes military spending. And Obama’s budget proposal got how many votes from his own party?

    Like this

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    Joe, last year Rep. Ryan proposed to simply end benefits for many veterans, raising costs on the others. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,229352,00.html

    I think it’s a bummer to raise the fees charged to military families and veterans — but that’s what the Republicans demand. Obama’s hit on them is less than Ryan’s.

    What do you think the odds are that Rep. Ryan could be persuaded not to raise fees and taxes on military families and veterans?

    Like this

  10. Joe writes:
    I just popped on here to ask your thoughts on Obama’s plan to significantly increase military health premiums. In his budget he plans to increase Tricare premiums 30-78%. So, we mandate everyone get’s insurance because premiums are going up and then do this to the troops? What say you?

    Oh you mean their premiums are going up because of the conservative idea of an insurance mandate?

    I got a question for you. What makes you think that they wouldn’t go up mandate or no mandate? After all, health care is a bit expensive. It’s not like my insurance premiums, for example, weren’t going up before “Obamacare”

    But hey, if you don’t like the conservative idea of an insurance mandate then I’m sure you have no problem with single payer.

    Because if the court does strike down “Obamacare” that is what we will be pushing for.

    Of course your side could compromise for once in it’s damn life and realize that the “insurance mandate” is acceptable since your side hates single payer even more.

    But no…it has to be your party’s way or the highway..absolutely no compromise. Why? Because your party has fallen into the grasp of lunatics and ideologues who think compromise is a mortal sin.

    Oh and by the way..you probably should bother to remember what branch of government has the power to raise premiums for the military. Because…it’s not the White House. What branch of government sets the budget again?

    But lets see what Dick Rumsfield says about health care premiums in the military:

    Donald Rumsfeld warned incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta not to acquiesce to the White House or Congress on deep cuts to defense spending — but also called for controversial increases in military health care premiums and the end of congressional earmarks to save money.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58190.html#ixzz1rAtbeJF6

    Like this

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    Joe,

    I think it’s a bummer to raise the fees on current active duty military and retirees. The numbers are difficult to square without some greater contributions.

    Have you looked at what Rep. Ryan’s plan would do?

    Like this

  12. lowerleavell says:

    Ed said, “Just a different application of the mandate, right?”

    With that logic, the government is mandating we all have children, no?

    I just popped on here to ask your thoughts on Obama’s plan to significantly increase military health premiums. In his budget he plans to increase Tricare premiums 30-78%. So, we mandate everyone get’s insurance because premiums are going up and then do this to the troops? What say you?

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/military-tricare-costs-would-jump-in-budget-plan-022312w/

    Like this

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    James, child tax credits exist whether or not you pay taxes. A healthcare credit would exist as a refund whether you owe taxes or not.

    Just a different application of the mandate, right?

    Like this

  14. So..lets get this straight.

    George W Bush and the Republicans ensured that Iraq, after we invaded them, has single payer health care.

    But we can’t have it here?

    Tell me, local Republicans, why are they more deserving then we in the United States?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

    http://current.com/community/90903072_gop-sponsored-single-payer-guaranteed-health-care-in-iraq-but-not-in-us.htm

    Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by the Bush administration in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

    Article 31 reads:
    “First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

    Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics, or
    private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law.”

    There are other health care guarantees, including special provisions for children, the elderly, and the handicapped elsewhere in the 43-page document.

    Like this

  15. For Joe to read when he has time. Do you honestly think an insurance company is going to give this couple…she with MS and he with very high blood pressure..insurance, Joe?

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8202-the-savage-arithmetic-of-the-pre-existing-condition

    If it wasn’t for Medicare and before that my mom’s insurance through her workplace do you think my mom would have gotten insurance despite being a life long smoker and at the end suffering from lung cancer? Because more and more, employers are cutting out their health benefits to their employees..they simply can’t afford it anymore. And what do you think those employees are going to fall back on? Especially all the ones with “pre-existing conditions”? Think my father would get insurance with the fact that he has atrial fib and high blood pressure and diabetes?

    What are your vaunted tax credits, Joe, going to do when the insurance companies simply refuse to insure the people that need it the most? Because it’s not like your party has any love for government regulation of businesses…..What are your vaunted tax credits going to do when people’s insurance costs more then the tax credits helps?

    Where was your party when Kyle Van Nocker’s family went bankrupt in a attempt to save Kyle’s life when their insurance company dropped his insurance? Your party loves to claim to be “pro-life” where was that sentiment when that 10 year old boy lay dying because his family’s health insurance company put their profits ahead of that family’s son?

    Again Joe…what price has to be paid for you to accept single payer as the only solution? How many family’s have to go bankrupt and how many people have to die?

    You and your party live in a fantasy world where your ideology is more important then people’s lives. To be blunt, Joe, your party is willfully killing people…by simply not raising a hand to help.

    Like this

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    Guys, I do not have time to continue this or other discussions. I wish I did, but I do not. Family and school must come before blogging of course.

    Joe, drop by when you can. I have hopes of persuading you someday (hope is a valuable thing, I think). I feel your time crimp pain.

    Comment when you can.

    Like this

  17. THe thing, Joe, is I don’t want communism. And please don’t go claiming that Canada’s health care system is socialism.

    But to use your logic..if you want the least government involvement in anything..why don’t you move to Somalia?

    Sorry, the health care system sucks. And nothing your party has said improves it. I find it real curious that you rather blithely ignore the fact that your vaunted tax credits still would not pay for insurance premiums. Exactly how long are you going to sit on your fat ass and pretend that insurance premiums would rather quickly outpace those “tax credits” in cost? You simply aren’t that stupid, Joe. Nor are those tax credits going to help people that the insurance companies simply refuse to insure.

    And it’s not like my cousin and her husband are paying $22,000 grand by choice. It’s that he’s in a rather dangerous line of work (oil rig worker) and the only “cheap” alternative for them is an insurance program that pays for nothing.

    Joe writes:
    Why no pounding against people losing jobs and the ability to buy insurance? Why is it that insurance companies are the evil villain all of a sudden?

    Part of my problem is people losing jobs and their ability to buy insurance. Whereas your party seems to think that all 50 million people who have no insurance choose to have no insurance. Whereas my solution would actually help them and your party wants to do nothing.

    As for your claim that insurance companies don’t make much profit…my response to that is this: Oh really? Then they should stop paying their executives so damn much shouldn’t they? They should stop having 30% overhead shouldn’t they? If they don’t make that much money they should stop the constant advertising and political lobbying.

    My problem with the insurance companies is simply they are a for profit business operating in an industry that absolutely should not be for profit at all. My problem with them is their cutting off people on whim. Or simply refusing to cover people at all. If you have a business putting profit ahead of people when it costs those people their lives then that business really shouldn’t be allowed. Or is it that Republicans worship the almighty dollar instead of the Christian morality they claim they follow?

    Oh and by the way..insurance companies have been the “evil villain” for well..the last 30 years. Since 19 years ago we went with the Republican idea of “trusting the market to fix the problems” and the market refused to do so..why should we listen to your party on this subject again? If the “free market” didn’t fix the system before what in God’s name makes you think it’s going to do so now?

    Exactly how many people have to go bankrupt and how many people have to die, Joe, before you say “Enough!” and accept the solution that works instead of the political ideology you want to follow? What does the cost have to be for you to put your political ideology aside in recognition of the fact that your political ideology is 1: no answer to the problem and 2: is indeed part of the problem and 3: is not what is best for the country?

    If Canada’s system is better, cheaper and does more for the people then why shouldn’t we adopt it? Come on joe, give a nuanced answer rather then that bulldrek right wing “It’s Socialism!” nonsense?

    Like this

  18. lowerleavell says:

    James, child tax credits exist whether or not you pay taxes. A healthcare credit would exist as a refund whether you owe taxes or not.

    These credits would equal what the government is already paying to subsidize healthcare and going directly to the individual to make personal choices. Sounds good to me!

    Your aunt and uncle who pay over $20,000 a year for insurance should talk to an insurance agent, not a government official. I could pay $20,000 a year in premiums if I wanted to as well at age 30. I just don’t need to because more adequate plans to my needs exist at cheaper prices. They should at least check and see what their options are. In life insurance, the older you get the more you pay for insurance. Is this right? Yeah – you’re more likely to die and so the risk to insure you goes up.

    Beyond this, if they are incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars of hospital bills, then obviously they are going to pay more no matter what they do. $20,000 a year in insurance is much cheaper than paying hundreds of thousands in hospital bills and sounds pretty reasonable to me on the insurance side, and unreasonable on the hospital bill side.

    Again, insurance companies aren’t making wild profit percentages here. Why is your venom not directed towards hospitals that are making much higher profit margins? How about the radical inflation of the dollar? Why no venom directed there? Why no pounding against people losing jobs and the ability to buy insurance? Why is it that insurance companies are the evil villain all of a sudden?

    Ok, I really need to stop posting as I have other things to do! I’ll give you the last word on here as well.

    Like this

  19. lowerleavell says:

    James, if you want Canadian healthcare, by all means, move to Canada. You could pose the strengths of Communist China’s booming economy, but that doesn’t mean that it would be right for the US to adopt communism as a means to economic growth. If you want communism, move to China.

    Here are some more facts about healthcare in the US as of ’09:
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/25/10-surprising-facts-about-american-health-care/

    Like this

  20. To quote from the article that Joe listed:
    What makes this Republican approach so radical is that it would completely replace all government tax and spending subsidies for the purchase of private health insurance with a fixed-sum tax credit— essentially giving every American the same number of dollars to apply to their health insurance, regardless of where they obtain it.

    Gee..I can blow that one out of the water inside 5 seconds, Joe.

    What do you think will happen when health insurance costs more then that tax credit? Because as I said..I have a cousin who just for her and her husband pay $22,000 a year on their health insurance premiums. Do you really think that tax credit would cover even half of that? And exactly how are you going to give a tax credit to a group of people (ie the poor) which your party claims pays no federal income taxes? After all..if as your party says 50% of the people in the United States pay no federal income taxes….then you can’t exactly give them a tax credit can you? Besides the fact that your party would jettison the restrictions that keep insurance companies from denying health care based on preexisting conditions or kicking people off health insurance on whim. After all..it’s not like the health insurance industry doesn’t have a metric ton of money to use to buy your party off with.

    Your party loves to pretend that health insurance premiums don’t go up and haven’t gone up dramatically. Why? Because noone in a leadership position in your party, and pay attention here, PAYS FOR THEIR OWN DAMN HEALTH CARE. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS ON THE GOVERNMENT’S HEALTH CARE PROGRAM SO THEY ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.

    If you’re all for choice, Joe, then you should have no problem with a public option.

    Now why don’t you read this one:

    http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

    Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

    In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada’s taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

    Myth: Canada’s health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

    The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everybody is covered.

    Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada’s GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada’s. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

    What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

    Myth: Canada’s government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

    There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don’t get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

    Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists’ care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

    Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

    Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not “socialized medicine” but “social insurance” systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

    And yet somehow we can’t have what Canada has, Joe? For what reason?

    Like this

  21. lowerleavell says:

    Guys, I do not have time to continue this or other discussions. I wish I did, but I do not. Family and school must come before blogging of course.

    Here is an article I read this morning that I’m sure you’ll blow apart without a proper response, but here it is all the same. Apparently, Republicans DO have a plan. You just wouldn’t like it because it gives individuals (especially low income) much more choices and freedom in their healthcare.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/02/there-is-gop-alternative-to-obamacare/

    Like this

  22. Oh and considering the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman which was signed into law by President John Adams…it would seem that the insurance mandate is indeed constitutional.

    Of course the conservative dominated US Supreme Court could rule otherwise but then that would be yet one more example of, just like in Citizens vs United and Bush vs Gore of the Conservatives on the court putting their politics ahead of the law and ahead of the US Constitution.

    Your side, Joe, may win the battle…but the chances are it will lose the war. So to speak.

    But then your party has lost the ability to recognize when it is pushing too far and being too conservative for it’s or the United States own good. As I said..your party has gone off into lalaland..dominated by the freaks, the crazies, the malcontents and the insane.

    Like this

  23. From: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/14/opinion/kohn-tax-the-rich/index.html

    Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, our nation’s total income rose by $528 billion. Of that economic growth, $464 billion went to pretax corporate profits. Just $7 billion went to wages and salaries. In other words, 88% of the brief recovery went to corporate profits and just 1% — that’s right, 1% — went to workers, according to a study by economists at Northeastern University. By contrast, when the United States was recovering from a downturn in the early 1990s, 50% of the growth in the national income went to wages and salaries.

    Like this

  24. Joe writes:
    My preference would be that every American is so stinking well off that no one even needs insurance because they can open their wallets and pay for their hospital bills with their spare change. Will it happen

    Well that would happen if you and your side would quit so coddling and protecting the rich and especially the top1% and allowing them to rape and pillage the rest of the country. If your side would actually agree that there actually needs to be balanced income growth across all classes and actually take the damn steps to ensure that then you might get your wish.

    Of course that would require, among other things, not cutting taxes on the rich, actually raising taxes on the rich, capping their income, not taxing capital gains at the lowest rate possible, strengthening unions and worker laws, not giving companies tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, actually punishing companies for shipping jobs overseas, reining in the excesses of the companies and the rich and especially stop deluding yourselves into 1: that the rich are job creators and 2: that giving the rich more money means economic prosperity for everyone.

    Of course your party will never agree to that because your party went off the deep end into right wing lalaland that says that the rich must have their arses kissed at every turn, that you somehow sustain an democracy and a economy where the few have all the wealth and that your party simply doesn’t give a damn about anyone who isn’t a multimillionaire.

    And yet you and all the other middle class and poor Republicans will continue to vote Republican despite the fact that it certainly isn’t in your economic best interests to do so. But please, continue selling out your own interests and the interests of the country on this delusion that if you do so long enough then one day you might be just like the Koch Brothers too.

    Meanwhile your party will continue to do stupidly insane things like try to eviscerate medicare so they can give another trillion dollar tax cut to the rich which will do absolutely nothing to help the country and will only screw the rest of us six ways to sunday.

    Like this

  25. Joe we have our answer to what will work if the courts strike down Obamacare…that would be single payer health care.

    If you want an alternative to that..then come up with it yourself. Quit being a lazy ass who thinks he can get away with opposing and doing nothing beyond that.

    Get your party to come up with an answer instead of being irresponsible jack***** who can only say “No!” at the top of their lungs.

    Put up……or shut up.

    Like this

  26. My party doesn’t have a problem with it, Joe, my party just thinks that everyone should get it. Whereas your party seems to think that noone should get it..except for the chosen few.

    So why should my party hold to a standard spouted by your party in the first place? And then hold to a standard spouted by your party that not even your party holds to?

    Joe writes:
    I know that unfettered loyalist tendencies run deep in the Democratic party

    *falls over laughing* said by a member of a party that acts more like a cult on a daily basis and came up with a loyalty oath and test…..And then said by a member of a party that routinely treats the opposition as enemies of the state, enemies of God and people who need to be destroyed. For supposedly disagreeing with your party at times and not having unfettered loyalty to it you sure blind yourself to the actions and words of your party.

    To quote:
    2) I would love universal healthcare! I simply don’t want government run universal healthcare. There is a difference. My preference would be that every American is so stinking well off that no one even needs insurance because they can open their wallets and pay for their hospital bills with their spare change. Will it happen? No, but don’t say I want to deny people health coverage when that is the furthest thing from anyone’s minds.

    Since you admit that your ideal will never happen..then help come up with a solution that is actually doable. Since we have examples of single payer government run health insurance that actually works (ie the rest of the industrialized world) then you should have no problem with it. Because, to be blunt, if your party opposes “Obamacare” and then comes up with no alternatives, which is what will happen, then indeed..you and your party want to deny people health coverage.

    Sorry, you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. And if you have no solutions then you are indeed..part of the problem.

    To quote:
    Beyond this, people seem to be going to the doctor for every cut, scrape, and cough these days. People flood the ER when they have the flu.

    Joe, I had what amounted to the flu from Jan 31st to Feb 7th. It damn well actually nearly killed me. Why? Because the infection got into my blood and started shutting down my one kidney. And it affected my heart enough that it lowered my blood pressure to a point that was actually dangerous.

    I would surmise that quite a lot of the people who go to the ER with things like the flu or other usually minor things are doing it because they have no health insurance to cover preventantive medicine and normal doctor visits. And as I’ve told you before….emergency care is more expensive.

    Joe writes:
    What is the answer? Address these problems and you have fixed healthcare in this country without universal governmental provision or an unconstitutional mandate.

    First off, the mandate hasn’t been shown to be unconstitutional yet. Secondly..I find it cute that you think it is unconstitutional when, and I put this in caps just to get you to pay attention, YOUR PARTY CAME UP WITH IT IN THE DAMN FIRST PLACE, and thirdly..why again shouldn’t we have single payer health care ala Canada?

    Because, again, its not like your party is coming up with any solutions so why again shouldn’t we resort to ours?

    Sorry, if the government can demand that I have car insurance then yes the government can demand that I have health insurance. And instead of kvetching about supposed “tyranny” why doesn’t your party get a rational brain and help.

    Sorry, again, if your party can’t come up with any alternatives then your party needs to shut up and sit down.

    Like this

  27. lowerleavell says:

    James said, “And then explain to me how a party that claims to so hate “government run health care” lets former VP Dick Cheney have a million dollar heart transplant on the taxpayer’s dime….

    Not to mention all the other government run health care that all those Republican Congressman and Senators enjoy and will continue to enjoy for the rest of their lives…..

    Funny..I haven’t seen your party willing to give that up. So they should get something that we don’t ourselves get…why?”

    Wow James, I actually agree! :-) So, which party will be the most mature and give it up first? Both parties are wrong here and I totally agree.

    Like this

  28. lowerleavell says:

    Ed said, “Joe, why have all you Republicans done a flip-flop on this? In 2008, in the Romney administration in Massachusetts earlier, Republicans said the mandate was a “better,” free-market solution than universal coverage. Why did you change your mind? Are you now saying you’d support universal coverage, or is this just one step to your plan to deny health care to 50 million Americans as much as possible, and inflate health care at 15% per year so profits of insurance companies can stay high?”

    There are a lot of factors here.

    1) Romney doesn’t speak for me, nor does the Republican party. I know that unfettered loyalist tendencies run deep in the Democratic party so it’s strange to think of someone disagreeing with their own party, but I am often in disagreement with what Republicans do and say. That’s one reason why I get frustrated here on this site so often. James is regularly saying, “Your party” to describe my viewpoints when I’m probably more often upset with Republicans than he is. So, I personally have never done a flip-flop and I don’t answer for politicians who will do whatever it takes to get elected (insert both Romney and Obama). Of course Romney has flip-flopped. He’s explained why when he said he’s running as a conservative, so he HAS to change his views in order to appease “the base.” Kind of like someone else who said that they would have a lot more freedom after their last election. Is this new to either party?

    2) I would love universal healthcare! I simply don’t want government run universal healthcare. There is a difference. My preference would be that every American is so stinking well off that no one even needs insurance because they can open their wallets and pay for their hospital bills with their spare change. Will it happen? No, but don’t say I want to deny people health coverage when that is the furthest thing from anyone’s minds.

    Beyond this, Obama was right that you can’t force homeless people to buy houses because they can’t afford it. The answer is not to simply give homeless people houses on the backs of taxpayers but to help them get jobs so they can buy it themselves.

    3) According to the Washington Post, the average insurance company’s profit margin is only 4.54 percent in 2011. That’s not that high. According to Forbes, as of 2010 the average “for profit” hospital that was surveyed had a profit margin of 25%, with a couple running over a 50% percent operating profit! The argument is that you get better care at these hospitals, but still…no one is boycotting these hospitals and demanding the government pay for them. Compare that profit margin even with Apple’s Iphone that has a profit margin of nearly 60%! However, I see no one boycotting Apple for their obscene profits or demanding universal smart phone coverage as a right for all that should be given by our government. If you don’t want an Iphone, you don’t have to buy it. Beyond this, no one is speaking out against the obscene amount of money that hospitals are charging.

    4) There are many factors that contribute to rising costs. Here are a few:
    A) Rising inflation – a sad reality of a failed administration’s attempt to borrow and print our way out of a recession. Inflation will not get better any time soon as far as I can tell. Dollars do not go as far as they once did and thus more are required by businesses for the same services.
    B) Better technology. With better medical advancements coming out every year the prices will continue to increase as you get better medical care. Imagine how cheap it would be to build a Model A car today. Could we have cheaper cars and cheaper healthcare? Yes! But it would mean that we would have to gut the technological advancements of our day.
    C) Free care for illegals – Not a popular subject, but it’s true that there is a significant amount of people who have the ability to simply have all their healthcare needs taken care of for free which drives the cost higher. I’m not making an excuse for it, but it is foolish to ignore that factor and say it doesn’t exist or contribute to high prices.
    D) Higher demand – as people become increasingly obese and our nation’s health becomes more and more undisciplined, the strain on our healthcare system has been tremendous. People want to eat junk and not exercise and then want the government to pay for their poor choices. If you want to eat junk and live carelessly, then you should pay more, in my opinion. People who are careless drivers and are in frequent accidents and get traffic tickets tend to pay more for their car insurance than safe drivers who take care of themselves and others. Is this wrong?
    Beyond this, people seem to be going to the doctor for every cut, scrape, and cough these days. People flood the ER when they have the flu. This demand for immediate care for both unnecessary healthcare and healthcare that could have been avoided if some personal disciplines had been demonstrated, drives up demand, which in turn drives up costs as well. The same reason gas prices are high when demand gets high also drives up prices when healthcare demand is high. High prices keep people from going to the doctor over non-issues just like high gas prices keep people from driving except when they need to. Same principle. I think people SHOULD be able to go to their doctor whenever they want and drive wherever they want, but only because everyone is making a ton of money through their jobs because we are having an economic boom unparalleled by human history. But that’s just me. :-)
    E) Jobless rating. Less jobs means less people with healthcare and less paying into insurance companies. Revive the job market and you will see costs balance out again.
    F) Obamacare. Since no one knew what would be in the bill until it was passed (thanks to Pelosi), I am sure that prices have increased as no one knew what to expect with the new law. Instability in the market always causes prices to go up – just look at gas. Ironically, there is something to be said for government intervention actually causing the problem that they are seeking to help. Reagan’s famous words echo through history, “In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem.”
    G) Lastly, abortion cannot be excluded from the cause of high prices of healthcare. It is estimated that some 50 million children have been aborted in this country. With the declining size of the family, there are fewer young people to pay into medicare, social security, and health insurance companies. This significantly decreased pool of people from abortions (and whatever children those aborted children might have had by now) makes it more expensive to provide for those who are older seeing there are not as many young people paying into the system. Another unpopular, but real statistic.

    What is the answer? Address these problems and you have fixed healthcare in this country without universal governmental provision or an unconstitutional mandate. But DON’T say that those who oppose Obamacare want to deny people healthcare. Not true.

    Like this

  29. Joe, read the blog at this link: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/2012/02/10/trying-to-catch-his-breathe-with-a-hole-ridden-safety-net/

    and then explain why we shouldn’t help that family and all the rest?

    Because when I was in the hospital nearly two months ago for 7 days for an infection and what the doctors feared was pneumonia…the bill was $55,000. Now I have insurance to pay for it…but that family doesn’t.

    The bill for my mom’s hospital stay 4 years ago..for the 5 days she was in the hospital when she was dying was nearly $100,000. Now she also had health insurance…but there are plenty of people that don’t through absolutely no fault or choice of their own. Well actually she had medicare…you know..the program your party wants to kill. She had been on medicare for just over 4 months when she died.

    So…we as a country should do nothing to alleviate the situation for what reason?

    And then explain to me how a party that claims to so hate “government run health care” lets former VP Dick Cheney have a million dollar heart transplant on the taxpayer’s dime….

    Not to mention all the other government run health care that all those Republican Congressman and Senators enjoy and will continue to enjoy for the rest of their lives…..

    Funny..I haven’t seen your party willing to give that up. So they should get something that we don’t ourselves get…why?

    Like this

  30. SO the government shouldn’t mandate that everyone get health insurance…..

    ….but the government should get to demand that a woman getting an abortion have a probe stuck up her vagina against her will and that a woman wanting her insurance to pay for her contraception should have to tell her boss whether or not she’s going to have sex?

    Tell me, Joe, how do you explain that particular hypocrisy?

    Like this

  31. Lets see what the Great White Hope of the GOP had to say on this issue:
    LENO: Suppose they were never insured?

    ROMNEY: Well, if they’re 45 years old, and they show up, and they say, I want insurance, because I’ve got a heart disease, it’s like, `Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that. You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered.’

    Translating for Mitt: Well too bad, you need to go off and die. Because I sure as hell ain’t going to lift a finger to help you because I, oh moral supporter of Jesus Christ that I am, don’t give a damn about you, just like the rest of the Christians in the GOP….

    Like this

  32. Tell me, Joe, if the government shouldn’t have an individual mandate for health insurance then why does the government get to mandate that I pay for the military?

    Like this

  33. Well if you don’t like an individual mandate merely because Obama compromised and accepted a Republican idea, Joe, then I assume you have no problem with single payer?

    Because I sure as hell haven’t seen your party come up with an actual alternative to “Obamacare” and indeed…Mitch McConnell says the Republicans aren’t even going to try.

    Perhaps you can explain to me why my cousin and her husband should continue paying $22,000…1/5th of their total salary in health care premimums.

    And perhaps then you can explain why insurance companies should be able to stop covering those who get sick, those who have preexisting conditions and little children who are sick?

    Sorry, Joe, unless your party comes up with an actual alternative that works..then your party is simply being grossly negligent and is actively contributing to the bankruptcy of millions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

    If you don’t have a solution of your own then you probably should have the intellectual honesty to not kvetch about the solution we came up with.

    Or is this opposition from your party really because, not that they don’t like the individual mandate, but that the scary black man in the White House proposed using it?

    Like this

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    That’s only half the story, though, Joe. A mandate is a bad idea as opposed to universal coverage, especially inferior to a one-payer plan. But the Republicans blocked universal coverage, and the Republicans proposed the mandate as a substitute. Obama’s original plan was superior to what we could get Republicans to sit down for.

    Joe, why have all you Republicans done a flip-flop on this? In 2008, in the Romney administration in Massachusetts earlier, Republicans said the mandate was a “better,” free-market solution than universal coverage. Why did you change your mind? Are you now saying you’d support universal coverage, or is this just one step to your plan to deny health care to 50 million Americans as much as possible, and inflate health care at 15% per year so profits of insurance companies can stay high?

    Like this

  35. lowerleavell says:

    Sorry guys, I just happen to agree with Senator Obama vs. President Obama that a mandate is a bad idea.

    Like this

  36. Oh and please, Joe, don’t be asinine enough to start talking about that supposed 500 million dollars from medicare bit.

    Considering your party wants to eviscerate, gut and privatize medicare you and your party aren’t in a position to be at all claiming that you’re oh so for protecting it.

    Like this

  37. Joe writes:
    And yes, I do know the pain of being uninsured, the pain of premiums, and the pain of doctor’s visits. I’m not exactly in the top income brackets here. Add it up, I think my wife and I spent about four or five of our eleven years of marriage uninsured. My son has a pocket of fluid on his knee that he has needed surgery on for seven years, but we can’t afford, even with insurance. My wife needs to go to the eye doctor because she has very bad vision but can’t right now because my youngest son (two months) will be having surgery this year and we don’t have vision insurance. I could go on and on. Yes, Ed, I do want good healthcare in this country, and as a husband and a father I desire it for my own family, OK?

    Trusting the Federal government to do what Jesus would do is rarely a good idea. I think I would be more comfortable trusting a Baptist or Catholic hospital to do Jesus’ will than the Federal government. :-) You have much more faith in politicians and bureaucrats than I do.

    And yet you’d rather trust the private market? The private market that so completely ****** up the situation that the government getting involved became necessary?

    Trusting the “free market” to do what Jesus would do is even less of a good idea.

    But lets exit Jesus out of this for a second. Back when Bill Clinton tried reforming health care your Republicans said that we should trust the market..that we should trust the insurance companies to fix the problems.

    They didn’t. They didn’t even attempt it. They made the problems worse. We tried the Republicans solution for nearly 20 years and the problem got worse.

    IT is time now that your party back down and let us try our solution. There are simply things that the “free market” never should be expected to do because when a situation requires morality over profit, when it comes to “capitalism” as your party practices it..as businesses practice it…morality loses every single time.

    Joe writes:
    Unless you think insurance companies are stupid and want everyone to be as unhealthy as possible

    From the insurance companies pov it is far cheaper to take people’s money and not bother paying for their medical care at all. That is what has been going on. Or did you miss that fact?

    Joe writes:
    You’re doing the same thing only reversed from the Federal government taking away from the private industry. Taking away premium paying customers, the government will only drive up prices for those privately insured even more.

    First off, “Obamacare” took no customers away from the insurance companies. Secondly, if you’re referring to single payer…you’re going to have a fun time supporting that position considering that 1: Canada has single payer and 2: Canada also has private insurance companies and 3: their costs are still cheaper then in the United States.

    We simply can’t afford “market based health care.” It doesn’t work. It sucks.

    And unless you and your party have actual solutions that work then do the country a favor and shut up and sit down.

    Like this

  38. lowerleavell says:

    Ed, I got my figures from your own post from the CBO. Here is what they said,

    “Estimates Through Fiscal Year 2022

    “This report also presents estimates through fiscal year 2022, because the baseline projection period now extends through that additional year. The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources).”

    Cost vs. additions to the deficit are two different things. So, you said that the increase to the deficit is $1.131 trillion. If the net cost is 1.252 trillion, then are we only paying 21 billion in cash and putting the rest on credit??? Am I reading this right?

    Ed said, “We would have been spending that money anyway, in health insurance premiums and copays and other payments. Moreover, you could count on at least 10% inflation annually, which you have not counted at all — last year, without ACA, it was closer to 15% overall and 20% in many areas.”

    When you say, “We” do you mean the American people or the Federal government?

    If it is “We” the people, are you proposing that these health insurance premiums, copays, and other payments are going to go away under the ACA? Now that the government is taking over, those under this new coverage will not have to pay anything? I was under the impression that our premiums would continue to rise under the new law.

    My zero figure is before ACA and after Obamacare. Only $500 bil is being transferred from Medicare (as far as I could see). So, unless this spending is simply being shifted from somewhere else in the Federal budget, then this is new spending for the government starting at zero and is going up over a 100 bil. a year.

    Ed said, “It’s like borrowing money to fix a hole in your roof before the rainy season. You could save that money, and leave the hole unfixed.”

    Borrowing money so that you can take tiles from one part of your roof to fix another part is rarely the ideal plan. Being against that plan doesn’t mean that you want a leaky roof.

    We, and many of the other plans I looked at, already have cheaper healthcare for those who are young and healthy. My children get free immunizations and well visits under our plan. This was set up before Obamacare. Unless you think insurance companies are stupid and want everyone to be as unhealthy as possible. They want people healthy for the same reason. It’s cheaper for them to insure healthy people. ACA fixes one problem that didn’t exist.

    Your savings of $850 bil a year is no savings at all. Instead of people paying it through higher insurance premiums we’ll just have to pay it through taxes. Right now our system is actually absorbing it through premiums, but the ACA simply puts that cost on a credit card. Great idea. Go Dems!

    Ed said, “Sorry you don’t want to save money on health care spending and cure more people. I just asked What Would Jesus Do — and I figure it’s right up His alley in the way of doing things. Jesus cured first, rarely asked for payment, and rejoiced when people were healthy and had money to tithe.”

    Ed, really? This is a strawman. Just because I’m not a fan of Obamacare does not mean I want to deny people healthcare. Just because I disagree with the ACA doesn’t mean I think healthcare is a bad idea.

    And yes, I do know the pain of being uninsured, the pain of premiums, and the pain of doctor’s visits. I’m not exactly in the top income brackets here. Add it up, I think my wife and I spent about four or five of our eleven years of marriage uninsured. My son has a pocket of fluid on his knee that he has needed surgery on for seven years, but we can’t afford, even with insurance. My wife needs to go to the eye doctor because she has very bad vision but can’t right now because my youngest son (two months) will be having surgery this year and we don’t have vision insurance. I could go on and on. Yes, Ed, I do want good healthcare in this country, and as a husband and a father I desire it for my own family, OK?

    Trusting the Federal government to do what Jesus would do is rarely a good idea. I think I would be more comfortable trusting a Baptist or Catholic hospital to do Jesus’ will than the Federal government. :-) You have much more faith in politicians and bureaucrats than I do.

    Ed said, “Americans were paying double what every other industrialized nation pays, per capita, and not covering 50 million people at all. That was not a bargain, despite your failing to understand what the cost was.”

    Our costs are high, but so is the cost of education here in the US. I do not see you clamoring to get the costs of education down to what other countries are paying. Be consistent here, Ed. You balked at the money that private schools take away from public schools. You’re doing the same thing only reversed from the Federal government taking away from the private industry. Taking away premium paying customers, the government will only drive up prices for those privately insured even more. They will drive companies out of business which will eventually only leaving the public option on the table. It’s what you all want anyway. Why not just make private insurance illegal and make it all government run and be honest? Oh, because one, government running an industry is socialism, and two, to eat that elephant you have to swallow one small bite at a time.

    We have high prices in the health industry, but look what you get in return. High level of care, you get to see an actual doctor, you don’t have to wait years on a waiting list just to have routine surgery, etc. etc. Is our system perfect? Absolutely not! Could it be better! Heck ya’! Is the answer to go back to the way it was? Well, sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward.

    I want to know how much premiums have gone up because of the ACA’s requirements, such as no preexisting conditions in any case. When the Federal government steps in, there is no way to know what would have happened without its involvement.

    My sister-in-law worked for a major insurance company for years. I wish I could get her in on this conversation. She used to spend hours telling my wife and I how much lower premiums would be if the government didn’t have so much red tape and mandates on these private companies. People would have much more freedom to choose what they do or do not want to have covered under their plans, what they would pay for, etc. One instance was when they would get a new requirement to implement within a certain amount of time and they would be given no time to implement it, so they would just pay the fine…driving up costs. It’s insane how involved the government already was in healthcare.

    Can you imagine the government doing this in any other industry? Since GM, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles are so expensive and rising in price every year, the government is going to start making cars to drive up competition, and mandate that everyone get a car if they don’t have one from a private industry. It’s not the Federal government’s job to provide a product and then mandate that citizens obtain it. Especially when the private sector is already doing it. Can the government help and encourage the private sector do things better? Absolutely. But taking away customers from private insurance companies and placing the premiums on the backs of taxpayers is NOT going to help things.

    And yes, I do understand the difference between the auto industry and the healthcare industry and that the healthcare industry is more of a need. Yet, I don’t see the government creating electric companies, or gas companies, or trash companies. I don’t see them building grocery stores to compete with rising food costs. I don’t see them building cell towers to compete with insanely expensive I-phones. This is a private industry that the government is taking over. 1/6 of the nation’s economy is getting socialized and you’re in the bleacher’s cheering! Incredible!

    Beyond this, the ACA mandate is completely unconstitutional. My freedom of choice is being taken away. I have family who are consciously opposed to health insurance and are in a co-op of sorts. I wouldn’t do it myself, but it’s worked for them. Their freedom to do this is being taken away. You’re ok with this? That doesn’t bother you at all? Or does the end justify the means?

    Like this

  39. Lower writes:
    Beyond this, I have yet to understand how spending over a trillion dollars is saving money, especially when premiums are not reported to go down under the new plan.

    And you’d do what? Nothing? Sorry, that doesn’t work. That’s what we did from the 1990′s to 2008. The health care system in this country is broken. Does “Obamacare” fix it completely? No but it’s a good start. The Republicans want to go back to the status quo which solves nothing, leaves us at the tender mercies of the insurance companies and leaves the people hanging out to dry. So I give you a choice. Your side helps fix the problem for once..or we go straight to single payer and be done with the insurance companies. Take your pick. But the status quo that your precious Republicans want to go back to no longer is allowed.

    If you’re so worried about that trillion dollars I’d have absolutely no problem in cutting a trillion dollars from the government’s budget.

    Of course it’s going to be a trillion dollars worth of government programs and tax breaks and corporate subsidies that the Republicans bust their tails to protect. We’ll start with Bush’s tax cuts…

    Like this

  40. Ed Darrell says:

    No, the projections have not been twisted by “the other guy.” According to the CBO report that you gave on the other post, the gross price of Obamacare is now $1.76 tril.

    He’s off by $500 billion that I can see — the CBO figure is $1.1 trillion.

    Moreover, as CBO reports it, the figures declined from their previous estimate, not rose:

    Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.

    $1,131 billion ($1.131 trillion) is more than $1.083 trillion. Cost savings are greater than projected earlier.

    Joe said:

    Offsets, yes, but a ten year projection was originally purported to be $900 bil. It now has a net cost of $1,252 bil.How is this a decrease again?

    According to CBO, the original cost projection was $1.131 billion, not $900 billion.

    Beyond this, I have yet to understand how spending over a trillion dollars is saving money, especially when premiums are not reported to go down under the new plan.

    We would have been spending that money anyway, in health insurance premiums and copays and other payments. Moreover, you could count on at least 10% inflation annually, which you have not counted at all — last year, without ACA, it was closer to 15% overall and 20% in many areas.

    It’s unfair to pretend that the ACA costs more, when it doesn’t. You presume that we started from zero spending, but we didn’t.

    Are you saying the government is spending less money than originally estimated before Obamacare was invented or after?

    Less money spent by government after, when the totals are figured including payments to the government and cost savings.

    What is “the bottom line”? From what I understand, spending over a trillion dollars is a lot more than spending zero if we didn’t implement the program at all.

    Yes, but you’re running the calculation from an incorrect assumption of a starting number. The starting number should be something near $1 trillion, with annual inflation of 15% figured in. Your guy assumed zero, about $1 trillion low.

    Beyond this which makes matters worse, we’re borrowing the money from China and putting our country even more in debt.

    We’d be going into debt anyway, and about 60% of the borrowing is from Americans, who will get interest payments. It’s not accurate to claim we’re getting it all from China. It’s not so, and never has been.

    It’s like borrowing money to fix a hole in your roof before the rainy season. You could save that money, and leave the hole unfixed.

    You won’t save money in the long run, and maybe not in the short run, either.

    It’s kind of like me telling my wife I need a new laptop and it will cost $800 and I’m going to buy it whether she wants me to or not. After review, I find that the laptop is actually $1,000 but I can offset some costs from our budget by not spending money for a month on Netflix, diving less, etc. and the now $1,000 laptop will only cost a net $790 and we have a net savings of $10. I can’t afford said laptop, so I am going to borrow to get it (I think we borrow about $.40 out of every dollar we spend, right?). So, I should be praised by my wife because I saved our family $10? No, I would be sleeping in the doghouse…and we don’t have a dog! I just borrowed and spent $1,000 without consulting my wife, regardless of the benefits of a new laptop! Ain’t happening in this family!

    You clearly don’t understand the problem with health care in this nation. We were paying about $17,000/year per person for health care. About 48% of that spending came from government money.

    Unfortunately, while we were paying the full $17,000 for each of our 308 million residents, we only got care for 258 million of them. So we were being bilked out of $17,000 X 50 million, or a total of 850,000,000,000. That’s 85% of a trillion just going to waste in the old system. In the new system, we don’t throw away the $850 billion first.

    Your guy didn’t include any of that $850 billion did he?

    Then, because it’s cheaper to provide health care early rather than later, we make more savings. And because prevention provides huge payouts in a well run system, we save even more.

    Your equation was set up wrong.

    Yet Democrats, spearheaded by our President, just did this to the American people.

    Saved the American people $850 billion a year, right out of teh gate. Sounds good to me. Go Dems.

    Obamacare is being thrust down the throats of the American people without our consent.

    Yeah, I’m sure you think it’s a good idea to deny people health care. You probably labor under the misconception that, if we deny people visits to a doctor, we save money. That’s not so.

    Sorry you don’t want to save money on health care spending and cure more people. I just asked What Would Jesus Do — and I figure it’s right up His alley in the way of doing things. Jesus cured first, rarely asked for payment, and rejoiced when people were healthy and had money to tithe.

    We are being forced to purchase something that is not optional (like driving a car) and face penalties if we don’t.

    So, you think health insurance is a bad idea? If the government didn’t force you to buy it, you’d go naked?

    I doubt it.

    Our government is spending billions for a program that a majority of us did not ask for or want.

    A majority has been clamoring for such a program for years. You’re so out of synch with the facts that you don’t realize you’re dead wrong on some of the basics, and totally at sea on much of the basics — including the costs.

    Your guy reported the CBO figures wrong. Check out what CBO really said (I gave the links earlier).

    Our freedom over our own healthcare is being taken away and being mandated by an unelected Secretary who we just have to trust knows what’s best for me and my family’s healthcare, more than me or our personal physician.

    Not cool!

    You’re still free to believe foolish things, but you’re not free to make the rest of us pay for your unsavory and diseconomical errors. That’s more freedom for most Americans, better health care for all Americans, and in the greater scheme of things, much greater freedom than being shackled to the ball and chain of 15% annual inflation in health costs.

    Americans were paying double what every other industrialized nation pays, per capita, and not covering 50 million people at all. That was not a bargain, despite your failing to understand what the cost was.

    Like this

  41. lowerleavell says:

    Ed said, “Why, do you think, the CBO’s version of what CBO said differs so greatly from the guy you cited? CBO says costs are higher, yes, but so are projected savings — and overall, the bill is still projected to save money on the bottom line.”

    No, the projections have not been twisted by “the other guy.” According to the CBO report that you gave on the other post, the gross price of Obamacare is now $1.76 tril. Offsets, yes, but a ten year projection was originally purported to be $900 bil. It now has a net cost of $1,252 bil.How is this a decrease again? Beyond this, I have yet to understand how spending over a trillion dollars is saving money, especially when premiums are not reported to go down under the new plan.

    Are you saying the government is spending less money than originally estimated before Obamacare was invented or after? What is “the bottom line”? From what I understand, spending over a trillion dollars is a lot more than spending zero if we didn’t implement the program at all. Beyond this which makes matters worse, we’re borrowing the money from China and putting our country even more in debt. It’s kind of like me telling my wife I need a new laptop and it will cost $800 and I’m going to buy it whether she wants me to or not. After review, I find that the laptop is actually $1,000 but I can offset some costs from our budget by not spending money for a month on Netflix, diving less, etc. and the now $1,000 laptop will only cost a net $790 and we have a net savings of $10. I can’t afford said laptop, so I am going to borrow to get it (I think we borrow about $.40 out of every dollar we spend, right?). So, I should be praised by my wife because I saved our family $10? No, I would be sleeping in the doghouse…and we don’t have a dog! I just borrowed and spent $1,000 without consulting my wife, regardless of the benefits of a new laptop! Ain’t happening in this family! Yet Democrats, spearheaded by our President, just did this to the American people. Obamacare is being thrust down the throats of the American people without our consent. We are being forced to purchase something that is not optional (like driving a car) and face penalties if we don’t. Our government is spending billions for a program that a majority of us did not ask for or want. Our freedom over our own healthcare is being taken away and being mandated by an unelected Secretary who we just have to trust knows what’s best for me and my family’s healthcare, more than me or our personal physician.

    Not cool!

    Like this

  42. [...] Earlier at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub Share this:TwitterStumbleUponDiggRedditFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

    Like this

  43. Ed Darrell says:

    Who is shooting at the messenger? Which message?

    What if we work to get the message right? Let’s not take an opinion piece by OnlyGodKnowsWho. Let’s see what CBO actually said:

    The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011

    CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period. (For comparison with previous estimates, these numbers cover the 2012-2021 period; estimates including 2022 can be found below.)

    And see this:

    CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.
    Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher

    The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions—$1,496 billion through 2021—is about $50 billion higher than last year’s projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO’s and JCT’s estimates—to $413 billion—leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.

    Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.

    The net cost was boosted by:

    An additional $168 billion in estimated costs for Medicaid and CHIP, and
    $8 billion less in estimated revenues from the excise tax on certain high-premium health insurance plans.

    But those increases were more than offset by a reduction of:

    $97 billion in the projected costs for the tax credits and other subsidies for health insurance provided through the exchanges and related spending
    $20 billion in the projected costs for tax credits for small employers, and
    $107 billion in deficits from the projected revenue effects of changes in taxable compensation and penalty payments and from other small changes in estimated spending.

    Why, do you think, the CBO’s version of what CBO said differs so greatly from the guy you cited? CBO says costs are higher, yes, but so are projected savings — and overall, the bill is still projected to save money on the bottom line.

    Better health care, cheaper costs. Sounds like a deal to me.

    Like this

  44. lowerleavell says:

    Since it is easier to shoot the messenger than respond to the message (a practice that is common here), perhaps a response from you on the CBO report would be appropriate?

    Kind of low to say that the law would only cost $900 bil. over 10 years when the estimate didn’t include 4 years of coverage. Actual estimated pricetag? $1.76 tril. And of course…our government never goes over budget right?

    This would be another case where not desiring Obamacare does not mean a desire to keep people uninsured and costs high. It means that there are alternate ideas as to how to accomplish that feat without taking people’s basic freedoms of choice away.

    http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

    Like this

  45. Apparently Joe considers it good news that Representative Johnson proved himself beyond a shadow of a doubt a bloody idiot and a right wing theocrat wannabe.

    Joe..what does Jesus have to do with the laws of the United States?

    Since I actually called the Congressman and asked his staff that question and they couldn’t answer it.

    Like this

  46. Ed Darrell says:

    Here’s what Sibelius said about the budget request a few days earlier:

    The Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) invests in health care, disease prevention, social services, and scientific research. HHS makes investments where they will have the greatest impact, build on the efforts of our partners, and lead to meaningful gains in health and opportunity for the American people.

    The President’s fiscal year (FY) 2013 Budget for HHS includes a reduction in discretionary funding for ongoing activities, and legislative proposals that would save an estimated $350.2 billion over ten years. The Budget totals $940.9 billion in outlays and proposes $76.7 billion in discretionary budget authority. This funding will enable HHS to: Strengthen Health Care; Support American Families; Advance Scientific Knowledge and Innovation; Strengthen the Nation’s Health and Human Service Infrastructure and Workforce; Increase Efficiency, Transparency, and Accountability of HHS Programs; and Complete the Implementation of the Recovery Act.

    Can you tell me, Joe, which part of this Sen. Johnson is complaining about?

    Like this

  47. Ed Darrell says:

    Sen. Johnson? He’s a U.S. Senator?

    Odd. Here’s a news release from Sibelius’s organization on the same day as this hearing. Johnson didn’t ask a single question about this issue. Is he that much in the dark?

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    March 7, 2012

    Contact: HHS Press Office
    (202) 690-6343
    Health care reform law helps 1.3 million minority young adults obtain health insurance

    New data released today by Health and Human Services shows that the Affordable Care Act has extended health insurance to a substantial number of racial and ethnic minorities nationwide. The health care reform law allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans through age 26.

    The data, based on combined estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Current Population Survey, indicate that approximately 736,000 Latinos, 410, 000 Blacks, 97,000 Asian Americans, and 29,000 American Indian/Alaska Natives have gained coverage because of the law.

    Highlighted in an HHS issue brief, the data coincides with a research letter also published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

    “As a result of the Affordable Care Act, we are making strides in giving every American regardless of race or ethnicity a fair shot at quality, affordable health coverage,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Because of the law, more and more young adults can breathe a little easier knowing they have health coverage.”

    The studies released today provide the first estimates of the law’s effects on young adults in minority groups.

    “These results show that the Affordable Care Act has already made a real difference in the lives of young adults, and that the benefits have occurred for Americans across racial and ethnic lines,” said Richard Kronick, Ph.D., HHS deputy assistant secretary for planning and evaluation, and one of the study’s authors. “The Affordable Care Act has helped give millions of young adults – white and black, Latino and Asian – the security of health insurance as they begin to build their careers and their families.”

    For more information about this topic, please see the HHS Issue Brief at http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/YoungAdultsbyGroup/ib.shtml

    For more information about the JAMA research article released today, please visit http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/9/913.extract

    Like this

  48. Ellie says:

    Isn’t this the Mr. Johnson who told the outrageous lie that his baby daughter would have died under “Obamacare?” Or do I have my Johnsons mixed up?

    Like this

  49. Ed Darrell says:

    Mr. Johnson is dishonest to claim that 1964 dollars are equal to 1990 dollars. He’s dishonest to claim that the original estimate for Medicare was so grossly in error, when the Medicare program was significantly expanded because it worked so well. Yeah, it costs money to get good health care — it’s cheaper than bad health care, however, and Johnson doesn’t talk about the money saved from deaths prevented. Very dishonest, it seems to me.

    He’s a cheap sunuvabitch that the waivers granted to employers are a broken promise, when that is exactly what Rep. Johnson demands.

    He’s a dastard to suggest that every small businessman will do the crooked thing and try to game the system.

    But other than that, yeah, it’s good to have an honest discussion.
    Diogenes is still, working the Republican Party meetings, trying to find an honest Republican to have a discussion with.

    We had 20% inflation in the non-Obama plan health care system last year. It’s just a flat out lie for Rep. Johnson to defend inflation of that scope, and claim much more modest cost increases are bad.

    Like this

  50. lowerleavell says:

    It would be about time for some good news! This exchange wasn’t very reassuring!

    Like this

  51. So Justice Thomas and Scalia apparenetly went to dinner with the lawyers that have brought the lawsuit to stop “Obamacare”

    Can we say “Conflict of interest”?

    http://www.jlpp.org/2012/01/10/obamacare-recusal/

    Like this

  52. Jueseppi B. says:

    Reblogged this on The ObamaCrat.Com™ and commented:
    This blog, and this post & information in particular, needs to be spread ALL around the United States Of America. Stop by and visit the blog: “Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub”. And spread this news all around!!

    Like this

  53. mpbulletin says:

    I just had to reblog this… hope you don’t mind :-)

    Like this

  54. Ben Hoffman says:

    Reblogged this on DRUDGE RETORT.

    Like this

Play nice in the Bathtub -- don't splash soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,975 other followers

%d bloggers like this: