Do you think health care reform will pass?

[Baculus]

The difference between the previous poster and you are that I can have an intelligent conversation with him and we two can discuss things without dragging the discussion down to a level that provides little to no value to either of us or anybody on the board.

For the record, I was not attacking anything. I'm certain that point is lost on you.

You have attacked the Democratic efforts all throughout this thread. Give me a break. And bring up some intelligent points, and maybe we can actually discuss them.

I think that point has been lost on you.

It is amazing how I can actually discuss policy with someone when real policy points are brought into the debate.

I think it would work better between you and I if we just didn't try to discuss these matters. Clearly, no good can come of it.

You are correct. I cannot debate hyperbole and blind first throwing from your side of the fence.

And it is very telling that you still never provided an alternative to the Democrat's efforts. You just don't have any ideas, so why would you want to debate me when I actually demand substance from you as an opponent?

[ABQCOWBOY]

The congressional budget office said the Senete bill will save us 100 billion over the first ten years, and a trillion over the next ten years; while being deficite neutral from the beginning.

That's just the governments saveings, private saveings are supposed to be several times those numbers.

The bill also puts safeguards in for consumers, and requires insurance companies to justify price hikes like the 37% price hike california insurance companies recently tried to levy.

What's not to like?

As I understand it, the CBO has not scored this Bill with the proposed revisions, which have not been made public. If this cost out accounting is in fact correct, then I would have to admit that this would seem to be a good options for America but I can not be certain of this as the CBO has just been released and I have received no information on it other then what has been reported in this last statement. Some of the things that are of concern to me is how certain things are accounted for in the CBO. For example, the 500 Billion from Medicare, how the cost savings are accounted for, if certain things are double dipped, so to speak.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You have attacked the Democratic efforts all throughout this thread. Give me a break. And bring up some intelligent points, and maybe we can actually discuss them.

I think that point has been lost on you.

It is amazing how I can actually discuss policy with someone when real policy points are brought into the debate.

You are correct. I cannot debate hyperbole and blind first throwing from your side of the fence.

And it is very telling that you still never provided an alternative to the Democrat's efforts. You just don't have any ideas, so why would you want to debate me when I actually demand substance from you as an opponent?

This is not accurate. No matter, you and I do not see things eye to eye and the ability to discuss in a constructive manner is not possible. Thanks though.

[Baculus]

We all realize your limited view of the GOP plans.

Limited view? When have YOU or anyone else actually brought ANYTHING other than "tort reform" into this thread? I have repeatedly asked for these GOP ideas and you haven't even tried to provide them.

Give me a break.

Even NOW when I ask for such ideas, when I challenge you to do so, you give me this flimsy one line response. (BTW, I noticed you had nothing to say about Rubio's lack of a position on health care -- surprise, surprise.

I just don't think you guys even understand your own party's ideas, or you don't care enough about reform to make an effort to understand them.

Just like the GOP, I think you guys are too cowardly to seriously debate this, outside your talking points.

[Baculus]

This is not accurate. No matter, you and I do see things eye to eye and the ability to discuss in a constructive manner is not possible. Thanks though.

It is totally accurate, and you did nothing to prove otherwise. I went back and looked at some of your previous posts. Here is what you had to say:

"The manipulation involved in this entire process is really the thing that I believe Americans are going to take away from this. If this passes, I don't believe Americans will ever forgive this administration for it. I just think that instead of being remembered as the President who accomplished great things, he will be remembered as a President who lied to America. Right or wrong, I believe that this will be his legacy if this thing passes the way it's set up."

Yep. A real substantial point there.

You are correct. I cannot debate this sort of stuff.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It is totally accurate, and you did nothing to prove otherwise. I went back and looked at some of your previous posts. Here is what you had to say:

"The manipulation involved in this entire process is really the thing that I believe Americans are going to take away from this. If this passes, I don't believe Americans will ever forgive this administration for it. I just think that instead of being remembered as the President who accomplished great things, he will be remembered as a President who lied to America. Right or wrong, I believe that this will be his legacy if this thing passes the way it's set up."

Yep. A real substantial point there.

You are correct. I cannot debate this sort of stuff.

Ok.

[Baculus]

As a note, BTW, I am actually familiar with some of the GOP proposals, but they haven't been coalesced into a recent bill, at least one they have even put forward in Congress.

That is the problem that folks such as I have: if the GOP care about reform, where are their legislative counter proposals?

[Baculus]

Ok.

Translation: "I give!"

[ABQCOWBOY]

Translation: "I give!"

What ever you say.

Pass the Bill. We'll see what happens.

[Baculus]

What ever you say.

Pass the Bill. We'll see what happens.

Yes, we shall see "what happens." And hopefully "what happens" are the objectives as set forth by the Democrats (though obviously you have something a bit more threatening in mind with your statement . . .)

[Wrong Direction]

As a note, BTW, I am actually familiar with some of the GOP proposals, but they haven't been coalesced into a recent bill, at least one they have even put forward in Congress.

That is the problem that folks such as I have: if the GOP care about reform, where are their legislative counter proposals?

The lack of a recent bill is a reflection of the political realities, not the lack of a position on health reform. The political reality is any Republican bill is a non-starter, and has been for about 3 years now. The minority doesn't get to set the legislative agenda, and they're only going to go through the process of creating and tweaking bills if they are.

In this sense, it's useful to understand the legislative process before throwing stones. Here's how legislation is crafted.

1. The House of Representatives votes on a general outline of legislation. The R's have provided this.

2. Next, the Senate takes that outline and crafts their own bill, which actually includes specific legislative language. W/o House passage in #1, no Senate legislative process is initiated to develop a bill. Thus, the original R outline hasn't been expanded upon in the form of actual legislation.

3. After Senate passage, the House can a) pass the Senate bill without changes, pass another version, or c) deem and pass to avoid going on the record.

4. If b above, then the house and senate go to conference to craft one final bill. That final bill would then have to be voted upon again by both houses.

5. The President signs, in between calling Bibi Netanhayu bad names and the late NCAA games.

So, there's a really simple reason that you don't see a Republican bill...it's because it didn't make it out of the House a year ago when it was presented.

[helptheSKINS]

Limited view? When have YOU or anyone else actually brought ANYTHING other than "tort reform" into this thread? I have repeatedly asked for these GOP ideas and you haven't even tried to provide them.

Give me a break.

Even NOW when I ask for such ideas, when I challenge you to do so, you give me this flimsy one line response. (BTW, I noticed you had nothing to say about Rubio's lack of a position on health care -- surprise, surprise.

I just don't think you guys even understand your own party's ideas, or you don't care enough about reform to make an effort to understand them.

Just like the GOP, I think you guys are too cowardly to seriously debate this, outside your talking points.

Do you think it's possible that you have either ignored or over looked something? I actually predicted it one time. I wish the NCAA tourney was this predictable. :beatdeadhorse:

[Wrong Direction]

Yes, we shall see "what happens." And hopefully "what happens" are the objectives as set forth by the Democrats (though obviously you have something a bit more threatening in mind with your statement . . .)

I have a quick question for you:

What are the benefits of a Health Information Exchange?

I assume your answer will be something along the lines of: economies of scale, protections for consumers. Any others?

To be fair, I'm asking because I personally think a well-developed Association Health Plan marketplace could provide much, if not all, of the same benefits of the HIE model w/o being run by the government, while also providing better and cheaper coverage for most Americans. I'm happy to get into why (hopefully later tonight, gotta run for a meeting soon), but I want to make sure I understand what you're actually supporting before I spend time making other points.

[Baculus]

BTW, since the Republicans on this forum will not produce their side of the argument's reform plan, I will do so. From the gop.gov website:

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Now, looking through their plan, I am wondering how some of this can be achieved without federal legislation. Also, seeing how the GOP recently produced an economic plan that would virtually eliminate Medicare and cut Medicaid, I don't see how they can use Medicare cuts as a talking points.

Now, being able to pool resources across state lines is a good idea: This is, after all, one of the objectives of the Democrat's exchange idea in their plan.

I do think it is a good idea to allow states to form their own locality-based reform plans: Case in point, Hawaii, California (e.g, the Bay Area), and New Jersey. Will the Democratic reform efforts adversely affect this? Perhaps so.

As far as tort reform is concerned, I am somewhat divided on this issue -- I don't know if I am for limiting the maximum financial judgment allowed, especially in extreme cases of malpractice.

[Baculus]

I have a quick question for you:

What are the benefits of a Health Information Exchange?

I assume your answer will be something along the lines of: economies of scale, protections for consumers. Any others?

I think the rapid exchange of information between medical practitioners is one of the key advantages of such an exchange.

This is something, early in this debate (as in early last year) I proposed as being an effective attribute to reform -- the value of information technology in reform. I work in IT, and I have worked in the medical field helping to install new equipment, i.e., servers for virtualization software and the workstation endpoints. Now, this isn't the same as an organizational level Health Information Exchange, but I have seen first hand the usefulness of fast provisioning of health care data via a centralized data depository.

The below article, though, discusses the challenges that organizations face with such information exchanges:

http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2010/02/11/Health-Information-Exchange-vendors-Klas-report.aspx

To be fair, I'm asking because I personally think a well-developed Association Health Plan marketplace could provide much, if not all, of the same benefits of the HIE model w/o being run by the government, while also providing better and cheaper coverage for most Americans. I'm happy to get into why (hopefully later tonight, gotta run for a meeting soon), but I want to make sure I understand what you're actually supporting before I spend time making other points.

That sounds like an interesting point -- if you could expound upon it when you return, I'd like to hear your ideas.

As a point of debate, I am not married to the Congressional Democratic bills nor the ideas contained within. I sometimes take a devil's advocate or contrarian position on some issues because -- well, it's what I do.

[Baculus]

Do you think it's possible that you have either ignored or over looked something? I actually predicted it one time. I wish the NCAA tourney was this predictable. :beatdeadhorse:

I know there were one or two points in which alternatives were discussed. Yes, I didn't mention them because those discussions were not sustained.

Now, I am completely willing to turn over a new leaf in this debate if others are willing to do so. Let's drop our respective talking points, and let's see if we can actually learn something new.

[Chicken Fried]

Chicken Fried: How are our banks doing? Did they crash like many were saying a year ago? Are we, the tax payers, actually getting paid back much of that money? Also, we're annoyed some of the stimulus money is just now being spent. If it hasn't been spent, my bet is it is on budget. The promise to spend it was what the market needed, so it is even working to some extent as the market hasn't crashed much further (making rebound), and our states stayed solvent for hte most part.

It is easy to be gloomy on the predictions in a recession, though usually they work out better because our economy rebounds (there is a time frame they use, and during the recession, a lot of that is more negative than if one calculates groawth from before a recession). I try to keep in the back of my mind the current projections of healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP come as our economy has been shrinking instead of being calculated assuming an average growth rate.

-------------------------------

I thought this article was interesting this morning from a former Congresswoman who voted what she thought was right against the will of her constituents. It's worth a read for all of us constituents who are sure we got it right and the darned politicians are the ones screwing it all up:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031701496.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Everything appears fine on the outside. The truth is, our country is broke. China essentially owns us. I don't support this healthcare bill in the least. If the Dems are going to try to pass it, though, this is absolutely not the time. The amount of money that will be tied up in this is more than we can handle. Our debt is going up every day. This is the time we need to cut back, not pour trillions into a healthcare plan that most people don't even like.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Everything appears fine on the outside. The truth is, our country is broke. China essentially owns us. I don't support this healthcare bill in the least. If the Dems are going to try to pass it, though, this is absolutely not the time. The amount of money that will be tied up in this is more than we can handle. Our debt is going up every day. This is the time we need to cut back, not pour trillions into a healthcare plan that most people don't even like.

I think that Health Care reform is badly needed now because I think that it does have an impact on our economy but I think that you make valid points when you say big expenditures are not in our best interests right now.

There is so much that could be done that costs relatively little as opposed to spending so much on another Big Government Program.

[Baculus]

Everything appears fine on the outside. The truth is, our country is broke. China essentially owns us. I don't support this healthcare bill in the least. If the Dems are going to try to pass it, though, this is absolutely not the time. The amount of money that will be tied up in this is more than we can handle. Our debt is going up every day. This is the time we need to cut back, not pour trillions into a healthcare plan that most people don't even like.

Well, what's sad is that any financial wiggle room for a "rainy day" domestic problem such as health care reform has been used up in the last ten years. We started off this last decade with a five trillion dollar debt -- we ended it with a twelve trillion dollar debt. And now, after all of this spending, we seemingly have little economic "cushion" to solve an issue -- health care -- which should have been resolved years ago.

And during this same time frame, health care costs have doubled. What's it going to look like in five years? Ten years? How do we addressed the uninsured, especially those who have lost their insurance due to unemployment. What about those who are refused treatment due to costs (the real "death panels") and those who are refused to be insured due to preexisting conditions.

Now, don't get me wrong: the cost of this bill is a considerable, totally valid issue. But I just wish (1) we had been worried about the debt during this last decade, (2) we had passed reform years ago, and (3) the minority opposition party had shown greater concern for this issue over the last year instead of stoking populist anger. Now, we are where we are.

How do we address all of these problems, and can it be done in a fiscally prudent manner?

[hkHog]

Well, what's sad is that any financial wiggle room for a "rainy day" domestic problem such as health care reform has been used up in the last ten years. We started off this last decade with a five trillion dollar debt -- we ended it with a twelve trillion dollar debt. And now, after all of this spending, we seemingly have little economic "cushion" to solve an issue -- health care -- which should have been resolved years ago.

And during this same time frame, health care costs have doubled. What's it going to look like in five years? Ten years? How do we addressed the uninsured, especially those who have lost their insurance due to unemployment. What about those who are refused treatment due to costs (the real "death panels") and those who are refused to be insured due to preexisting conditions.

Now, don't get me wrong: the cost of this bill is a considerable, totally valid issue. But I just wish (1) we had been worried about the debt during this last decade, (2) we had passed reform years ago, and (3) the minority opposition party had shown greater concern for this issue over the last year instead of stoking populist anger. Now, we are where we are.

How do we address all of these problems, and can it be done in a fiscally prudent manner?

It can't be done in a fiscally prudent manner. The only way we can deal with our debt is to make massive cuts to EVERYTHING. If this bill is passed now, even if it does cut projected deficits will do nothing to help. In a decade or so there will be no medicare, no social security, no money for public education, nothing left. No American under the age of 50 can expect to ever get anything from the government, if you are in this age group I hope that you are completely self sufficient or you are royally screwed. I don't care how much you paid in, you're not getting anything back. Sorry, but this is the ugly truth, we are already bankrupt and it is only a matter of time before we get called on it.

I agree, the status quo is not sustainable but to act like this is sustainable is rediculous. It's the equivalent of someone who is in massive debt and unemployed saying, "well my cable and internet bill is currently $100/month, I'll just cut out the movie channels and then I can download any movie I want for free and that should save me $20/month and everything will be OK." It just makes no sense and that is why that 43% of people have less than $10,000 saved for retirement thread was so disturbing because by the time most Americans retire there will be no money left for health care, social security, etc... Bottom line is, it can't be done unless we completely gut everything.

[DieselPwr44]

I agree, the status quo is not sustainable but to act like this is sustainable is rediculous. It's the equivalent of someone who is in massive debt and unemployed saying, "well my cable and internet bill is currently $100/month, I'll just cut out the movie channels and then I can download any movie I want for free and that should save me $20/month and everything will be OK." It just makes no sense and that is why that 43% of people have less than $10,000 saved for retirement thread was so disturbing because by the time most Americans retire there will be no money left for health care, social security, etc...

How can anyone argue with logic coming from guys like this?

WiYeJ__9BOs&feature=related

[Baculus]

It can't be done is a fiscally prudent manner. The only way we can deal with our debt is to make massive cuts to EVERYTHING. If this bill is passed now, even if it does cut projected deficits will do nothing to help. In a decade or so there will be no medicare, no social security, no money for public education, nothing left. No American under the age of 50 can expect to ever get anything from the government, if you are in this age group I hope that you are completely self sufficient or you are royally screwed. I don't care how much you paid in, you're not getting anything back. Sorry, but this is the ugly truth, we are already bankrupt and it is only a matter of time before we get called on it.

There is a potentiality that everything you just described is going to happen anyway, in a worst case scenario, but without addressing the need for health care reform I don't think dire financial straits can be avoided for both the federal government and for the public.

But I suspect you know this, from reading your paragraph. I think contention is to "how do we go from here to there: financial stability?"

The Ron Paul in me would say, "Cut everything until we have reached point zero. Then re-align and go from there." But that is probably nearly impossible to do at this point.

At this rate, businesses will have difficult in providing insurance for their employees. What happens then? The housing market provided to be a tipping point for economy -- can a "health care crises" provide the same sort of effect? (Those for and against reform will probably make an argument that it will.)

Just think about this though, when it comes to public spending: The DOD has a budget of around $540 billion at this point (give or take a few billion). The health care bill is slated to cost over a trillion in ten years. During that same period of time, if the DOD budget stays the same (and it has been increasing every year during this decade), we will have spent five trillion on military spending.

If we are going to make cuts, we have to look at EVERY department for budgetary cuts. We can't become a Sparta -- a gutted, militarized state, because that is what we are facing, with cuts to domestic programs, where the public health is declining as well as the public's education and well being.

Sorry -- this responses ended up being much longer than I anticipated. That is the problem with my writing! I like to append, append, append.

I agree, the status quo is not sustainable but to act like this is sustainable is rediculous. It's the equivalent of someone who is in massive debt and unemployed saying, "well my cable and internet bill is currently $100/month, I'll just cut out the movie channels and then I can download any movie I want for free and that should save me $20/month and everything will be OK." It just makes no sense and that is why that 43% of people have less than $10,000 saved for retirement thread was so disturbing because by the time most Americans retire there will be no money left for health care, social security, etc...

I agree with this paragraph, so at least we do have some commonalities between us.

[hkHog]

There is a potentiality that everything you just described is going to happen anyway, in a worst case scenario, but without addressing the need for health care reform, I don't think dire financial straits can be avoid, for both the federal government and for the public.

But I suspect you know this, from reading your paragraph. I think contention is to "how do we go from here to there: financial stability?"

The Ron Paul in me would say, "Cut everything until we have reached point zero. Then re-align and go from there." But that is probably nearly impossible to do at this point.

At this rate, businesses will have difficult in providing insurance for their employees. What happens then? The housing market provided to be a tipping point for economy -- can a "health care crises" provide the same sort of effect? (Those for and against reform will probably make an argument that it will.)

Just think about this though, when it comes to public spending: The DOD has a budget of around $540 billion at this point (give or take a few billion). The health care bill is slated to cost over a trillion in ten years. During that same period of time, if the DOD budget stays the same (and it has been increasing every year during this decade), we will have spent five trillion on military spending.

If we are going to make cuts, we have to look at EVERY department for budgetary cuts. We can't become a Sparta -- a gutted, militarized state, because that is what we are facing, with cuts to domestic programs, where the public health is declining as well as the public's education and well being.

Sorry -- this responses ended up being much longer than I anticipated. That is the problem with my writing! I like to append, append, append.

I agree with this paragraph, so at least we do have some commonalities between us.

I agree with everything you say, good post. My main argument against this bill is I don't believe that the cost savings that the CBO is predicting will materialize and I don't think that all of the cost cutting avenues that we should be pursuing are being pursued. This should be bare bones and it should be purely cost cutting measures.

[Chicken Fried]

There is a potentiality that everything you just described is going to happen anyway, in a worst case scenario, but without addressing the need for health care reform, I don't think dire financial straits can be avoid, for both the federal government and for the public.

But I suspect you know this, from reading your paragraph. I think contention is to "how do we go from here to there: financial stability?"

The Ron Paul in me would say, "Cut everything until we have reached point zero. Then re-align and go from there." But that is probably nearly impossible to do at this point.

At this rate, businesses will have difficult in providing insurance for their employees. What happens then? The housing market provided to be a tipping point for economy -- can a "health care crises" provide the same sort of effect? (Those for and against reform will probably make an argument that it will.)

Just think about this though, when it comes to public spending: The DOD has a budget of around $540 billion at this point (give or take a few billion). The health care bill is slated to cost over a trillion in ten years. During that same period of time, if the DOD budget stays the same (and it has been increasing every year during this decade), we will have spent five trillion on military spending.

If we are going to make cuts, we have to look at EVERY department for budgetary cuts. We can't become a Sparta -- a gutted, militarized state, because that is what we are facing, with cuts to domestic programs, where the public health is declining as well as the public's education and well being.

Sorry -- this responses ended up being much longer than I anticipated. That is the problem with my writing! I like to append, append, append.

I agree with this paragraph, so at least we do have some commonalities between us.

I believe we DO need to gut everything. That's the only way this can be fixed. We're not necessarily screwed. We might have a small window of opportunity to really turn this around, and spending trillions on a healthcare plan that won't change anything and raising taxes for it won't get us there. The only problem is I think we need to keep a lot of our military and defense spending intact. I don't think we could be safe in this day and age without it. There is so much unnecessary money the government shells out to domestic programs that, frankly, are not important in the least. I was one of the few who didn't support the bailout. Why? Capitalism always sorts itself out. As much as those big companies were imbedded into our economy, if a company becomes weak, you let it die. In its place, something better will step up that can survive. There would have been big repercussions, but that's what you get when you overextend. Capitalism is weakened when you begin to rely on the government. It is not the government's role to support dying companies who brought on the problem themselves.

Basically, we've tied up so much money in so many unimportant ventures that it's obvious why we're in a hole. Our government departments are too big and overstep their boundaries too much. We need to leave more up to the states and encourage privatization. This problem won't be fixed by overtaxing. The people need money to invest in the economy and strengthen it. Instead, the government takes the money, holes it away and either 1) Doesn't even spend it (Stimulus bill) 2) Waste it 3) Occasionally gets it right (military spending)

[Baculus]

I agree with everything you say, good post. My main argument against this bill is I don't believe that the cost savings that the CBO is predicting will materialize and I don't think that all of the cost cutting avenues that we should be pursuing are being pursued. This should be bare bones and it should be purely cost cutting measures.

Thank you. You also raised some good points, so an equally fair treatment was needed.

In your view, besides the financial cuts you believe are needed, what effective cost cutting measures have you seen, or perhaps heard or read about, that you believe could be implemented?