Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[ABQCOWBOY]

Before this goes on forever, you need to prove you know the difference between single payer and public option. Explain the difference sir. Show your work.

 

 

Basically, Single Payer is fully provided Government Healthcare.   Public option is a Federal plan that competes with private insurance.  

 

Now, prove to me that you are anybody to act as an authority on what anybody says or thinks on this board.

Edited November 13, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY

[TMK9973]

Basically, Single Payer is fully provided Government Healthcare.   Public option is a Federal plan that competes with private insurance.  

 

Now, prove to me that you are anybody to act as an authority on what anybody says or thinks on this board.

While that is the first answer if you google it (Almost word for word) I think its misleading.  It implies goverment will be hiring the Dr's or running the hospitals, or acting as the insurance companies. I for one, wanted a Canada style single payer (Which I  think was was most single payer supporters wanted) and that would mean private insurance, private Dr's, for profit hospitals, etc....but insurance would be paid for by the Government.  

[Larry]

No, I can't quote you what you ask for because that's not what I said. What I said was that I have been told that the numbers follow party lines. Not that there is not 1 single person. Are you suggesting that only 1 person feels as if the Bill did not go far enough?

Rhetorical, I know that this is not what you are suggesting. See what I'm trying to say? Go back and read this thread and you will find those that suggest it's along party lines.

Ah. So, when I suggested that there were lefties who didn't like the ACA because it didn't go far enough, and you claimed that you had been told that there was no such person, you were just making things up?

You know, this post of yours:

This may be true Larry, I don't know.  However, I have been told by more then one poster on this board that what you suggest can not possibly be true.   I've been told that these numbers follow strict party lines.

[ABQCOWBOY]

While that is the first answer if you google it (Almost word for word) I think its misleading.  It implies goverment will be hiring the Dr's or running the hospitals, or acting as the insurance companies. I for one, wanted a Canada style single payer (Which I  think was was most single payer supporters wanted) and that would mean private insurance, private Dr's, for profit hospitals, etc....but insurance would be paid for by the Government.  

 

What it implies to me is that Single Payer means Taxes and we all know that taxation comes from the House.   The way this Bill was passed was to take an existing Bill that had already passed in the House, namely "Shell Bill" and added the ACA language into it and then voted and passed it in the Senate.   If you had made this Single Payer, that would have required the Bill to go back to the House for a vote.   It would have never passed.   That's why it this was never going to be Single Payer.

Ah. So, when I suggested that there were lefties who didn't like the ACA because it didn't go far enough, and you claimed that you had been told that there was no such person, you were just making things up?

You know, this post of yours:

 

 

No.  I was simply restating what had been explained to me by other posters.   However, if you feel that strongly about it, perhaps you should ask this same question of the posters who educated me on the subject.

Edited November 13, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY

[Larry]

What it implies to me is that Single Payer means Taxes and we all know that taxation comes from the House.   The way this Bill was passed was to take an existing Bill that had already passed in the House, namely "Shell Bill" and added the ACA language into it and then voted and passed it in the Senate.   If you had made this Single Payer, that would have required the Bill to go back to the House for a vote.   It would have never passed.   That's why it this was never going to be Single Payer.

 

You've taken an untrue talking point which had a grain of truth to it, and then extrapolated it into something completely untrue. 

 

Yes, some bills, probably the ACA included, do begin their life in Congress as some other bill, and then Congress pulls a switch, where they "amend" the bill, where the amendment consists of "remove the entire existing bill, including the title, and replace it with this". 

 

For example, I'm pretty certain that the two recent "debt ceiling" bills began that way.  As I understand it, it's a common procedure for getting around some pesky rules that may require that a bill cannot be brought to the floor unless it's been in committee for 3 months.  You take some bill that's about naming a Post Office in Topeka after a dead soldier, (that's been sitting for 3 months, waiting for it's turn), and you "amend" it into a debt ceiling bill, so you can skip the 3 month wait.

 

And I'm perfectly willing to assume that the House, and Senate versions, may well have begun life this way.  (And often, they begin as two separate bills, which each chamber will work on, in parallel.  That's also not uncommon.)  

 

However, yes, the full House voted on a full ACA Bill.  After spending a year debating and amending it.  Just like the Senate did.  The two versions were largely similar, but not quite identical. 

 

Because the two, passed bills were similar, but not quite identical, Congress chose to invoke a procedure called "reconciliation", where they send the two bills to a committee composed of people from both Chambers (And, I think, both Parties.), who are then permitted to make some changes to the two bills, but there are limits on the changes they can make. 

 

 

Although, as I understand it, these changes can also have funny consequences, too.  For example, the reconciliation committee is allowed to insert things into the "final" bill, which weren't in either the House or Senate version.  I have read that Congressmen fight to get on these reconciliation committees, because it's not at all unusual for the House to pass a version that has 13 earmarks, and the Senate passes one that has 9, but the bill comes out of reconciliation with 137 of them, and no one, in either chamber, ever voted for any of them.  It's supposedly a golden opportunity to hand out pork without anybody actually having to vote for it

 

 

And then, when this joint committee votes to say that they're done tinkering with the law, there is a procedure where both Chambers "deem the measure passed", without actually having to vote on the final version. 

 

----------

 

Yes, the final version that went to Obama's desk was never voted on, by either chamber. 

 

As done in accordance with the rules which both Chambers wrote, for themselves.  As the Constitution specifically states they can do. 

 

And this is a common proceedure, with large, complex, bills that involve a lot of negotiations. 

Edited November 13, 2014 by Larry

[Larry]

No.  I was simply restating what had been explained to me by other posters.   However, if you feel that strongly about it, perhaps you should ask this same question of the posters who educated me on the subject.

You want me to ask other posters to explain why you're claiming they said something that even you admit they didn't say?

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

You've taken an untrue talking point which had a grain of truth to it, and then extrapolated it into something completely untrue. 

 

Yes, some bills, probably the ACA included, do begin their life in Congress as some other bill, and then Congress pulls a switch, where they "amend" the bill, where the amendment consists of "remove the entire existing bill, including the title, and replace it with this". 

 

 

For example, I'm pretty certain that the two recent "debt ceiling" bills began that way.  As I understand it, it's a common procedure for getting around some pesky rules that may require that a bill cannot be brought to the floor unless it's been in committee for 3 months.  You take some bill that's about naming a Post Office in Topeka after a dead soldier, (that's been sitting for 3 months, waiting for it's turn), and you "amend" it into a debt ceiling bill, so you can skip the 3 month wait.

 

 

And I'm perfectly willing to assume that the House, and Senate versions, may well have begun life this way.  (And often, they begin as two separate bills, which each chamber will work on, in parallel.  That's also not uncommon.)  

 

However, yes, the full House voted on a full ACA Bill.  After spending a year debating and amending it.  Just like the Senate did.  The two versions were largely similar, but not quite identical. 

 

Because the two, passed bills were similar, but not quite identical, Congress chose to invoke a procedure called "reconciliation", where they send the two bills to a committee composed of people from both Chambers (And, I think, both Parties.), who are then permitted to make some changes to the two bills, but there are limits on the changes they can make. 

 

 

Although, as I understand it, these changes can also have funny consequences, too.  For example, the reconciliation committee is allowed to insert things into the "final" bill, which weren't in either the House or Senate version.  I have read that Congressmen fight to get on these reconciliation committees, because it's not at all unusual for the House to pass a version that has 13 earmarks, and the Senate passes one that has 9, but the bill comes out of reconciliation with 137 of them, and no one, in either chamber, ever voted for any of them.  It's supposedly a golden opportunity to hand out pork without anybody actually having to vote for it

 

 

And then, when this joint committee votes to say that they're done tinkering with the law, there is a procedure where both Chambers "deem the measure passed", without actually having to vote on the final version. 

 

----------

 

Yes, the final version that went to Obama's desk was never voted on, by either chamber. 

 

As done in accordance with the rules which both Chambers wrote, for themselves.  As the Constitution specifically states they can do. 

 

And this is a common proceedure, with large, complex, bills that involve a lot of negotiations. 

 

To be more specific, the Bill that ended up being the ACA was actually the Military Home Owners Bill. 

 

However, I am open to the possibility that you may have info I don't.  If you have proof that a Bill that was set up as Single Payer was sent to the House and it passed, I'm willing to discuss.   I'm pretty sure no such Bill that was ever a part of the ACA was sent to the House.   Specifically, anything that was voted on to approve Taxes.   Again, that's why this was never going to be Single Payer.   Once the Government starts paying for everybodies healthcare, that means that you have to raise funding to support that.   That means Taxes and that never happened.  

 

Was never ever going to be Single Payer.

You want me to ask other posters to explain why you're claiming they said something that even you admit they didn't say?

 

Why not?   You seem perfectly willing to ask me about positions you know I never supported.

 

[Predicto]

Are you done with single payor now?

 

Care to move on to the subjects that everyone else has been talking about?

[Larry]

However, I am open to the possibility that you may have info I don't.  If you have proof that a Bill that was set up as Single Payer was sent to the House and it passed, I'm willing to discuss.

I'll be happy to do so. Just as soon as you submit proof that I've made that claim.

 

Specifically, anything that was voted on to approve Taxes.

 

Uh, news flash: Both versions of the ACA bill included numerous taxes.

Heard about the "medical device tax"? It was in both versions.

Have you heard about the "individual mandate"? That was in both versions, too. And it involves money, collected by the IRS, from anybody who fails to send the IRS proof that they bought insurance. The USSC recently decided that having the IRS collect money from people based on the paperwork they submit to the IRS, when they file their taxes? That's called "a tax".

 

This was when the GOP tried to claim that the mandate was "unconstitutional".  Another untrue Republican sound bite that you've been throwing around in the thread, multiple times, too.  Another claim which those people in the USSC (who, I suspect, know more about what's constitutional than you appear to), said was untrue.

 

That's how the ACA managed to come up with a rating from the CBO that it would reduce the deficit, over 10 years.  (A rating which the CBO has reviewed, and still stands by, too.)  It's because the bill's revenues (these are sometimes referred to as "taxes") were bigger than it's expenditures. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'll be happy to do so. Just as soon as you submit proof that I've made that claim.

 

 

 

 

 Then it's settled.  No such Bill was ever submitted, under the current ACA, voted and passed by the House.  That's why there was never going to be a Single Payer Option.   The entire storyline that President Obama made concessions on Single Payer is just a talking point.

Uh, news flash: Both versions of the ACA bill included numerous taxes.

Heard about the "medical device tax"? It was in both versions.

Have you heard about the "individual mandate"? That was in both versions, too. And it involves money, collected by the IRS, from anybody who fails to send the IRS proof that they bought insurance. The USSC recently decided that having the IRS collect money from people based on the paperwork they submit to the IRS, when they file their taxes? That's called "a tax".

 

 

This was when the GOP tried to claim that the mandate was "unconstitutional".  Another untrue Republican sound bite that you've been throwing around in the thread, multiple times, too.  Another claim which those people in the USSC (who, I suspect, know more about what's constitutional than you appear to), said was untrue.

 

 

That's how the ACA managed to come up with a rating from the CBO that it would reduce the deficit, over 10 years.  (A rating which the CBO has reviewed, and still stands by, too.)  It's because the bill's revenues (these are sometimes referred to as "taxes") were bigger than it's expenditures. 

 

 

What other version are you referring to?  Can you give me the Bill number?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Are you done with single payor now?

 

Care to move on to the subjects that everyone else has been talking about?

 

I'll talk about whatever subject you would like, assuming I have an opinion on the subject.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'll talk about whatever subject you would like, assuming I have an opinion on the subject.

 

If you don't have an opinion, I'm sure you can read WorldNetDaily quickly and find out what that opinion should be.

[Larry]

Then it's settled.  No such Bill was ever submitted, under the current ACA, voted and passed by the House.  That's why there was never going to be a Single Payer Option.   The entire storyline that President Obama made concessions on Single Payer is just a talking point.

Then it's settled. You will make an untrue claim, follow it up with a second untrue claim, then claim that this proves a third untrue claim.

Just in the above chain, you have run from demanding proof that a particular bill was passed by Congress, to announcing that, since it never passed, therefore it was never submitted, to announcing that therefore it was never wanted.

 

What other version are you referring to? Can you give me the Bill number?

 

 

Um, you are aware that the House and the Senate voted on (and passed) different versions of the Bill? 

 

I assume, based on your obvious choice of "news" sources, that you may have heard the phrase "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" referenced once or twice?  (Along with untrue claims that it says something which isn't true?) 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you don't have an opinion, I'm sure you can read WorldNetDaily quickly and find out what that opinion should be.

 

 

Or better yet, I can just listen to you and you'll try and give me one.   Six to one, half dozen to the other I suppose.

Then it's settled. You will make an untrue claim, follow it up with a second untrue claim, then claim that this proves a third untrue claim.

Just in the above chain, you have run from demanding proof that a particular bill was passed by Congress, to announcing that, since it never passed, therefore it was never submitted, to announcing that therefore it was never wanted.

 

OK, this is pretty easy to defend.  Show me the Bill or give me the number of the Bill you claim was voted on approved under ACA by the House with Single Payer and we can all read it. 

Um, you are aware that the House and the Senate voted on (and passed) different versions of the Bill? 

 

I assume, based on your obvious choice of "news" sources, that you may have heard the phrase "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" referenced once or twice?  (Along with untrue claims that it says something which isn't true?) 

 

Again, show me the Bill associated with the ACA with Single Payer that the House submitted and passed.   I am aware that there were multiple Bills voted on and passed by the House that never saw the light of day in the Senate but none of them, that I am aware of, with Single Payer. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What Gruber said is very unpopular with pretty much all sides.   It's unpopular with the Left because there will be political ramifications associated with the things he's said.  It's unpopular with the Right because they feel as if the Law was passed unscrupulously and there is political advantage to be had. 

 

I think he's simply telling the truth, however unpopular it is.   The truth of this is that the ACA, good or bad, right or wrong, belongs to the Democratic Party 100%.  Any positive that may come of it belongs to the Democrats at this point.   Any negative also belongs to the Democrats, at this point. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

What Gruber said is very unpopular with pretty much all sides.   It's unpopular with the Left because there will be political ramifications associated with the things he's said.  It's unpopular with the Right because they feel as if the Law was passed unscrupulously and there is political advantage to be had. 

 

I think he's simply telling the truth, however unpopular it is.   The truth of this is that the ACA, good or bad, right or wrong, belongs to the Democratic Party 100%.  Any positive that may come of it belongs to the Democrats at this point.   Any negative also belongs to the Democrats, at this point. 

 

That's the kind of political analysis people pay top dollar for. Popular things are good. Unpopular things are bad.

 

I honestly don't see ACA as a political benefit for Democrats. It's clearly done some political damage that is going to take a while to overcome. The hope with ACA is that it becomes Social Security or Medicare - two popular welfare programs that are embedded into the system and are utterly impossible to remove. If that happens, the country benefits and we might be able to have an election where we don't discuss "soaring healthcare costs" one day.

 

The only person who can really benefit from ACA at this point is Obama - and only in a historical sense. If ACA can be to him what Medicare is to LBJ and Social Security is to FDR, you aren't going to be able to define his term in office as anything but a historical turning point.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That's the kind of political analysis people pay top dollar for. Popular things are good. Unpopular things are bad.

 

I honestly don't see ACA as a political benefit for Democrats. It's clearly done some political damage that is going to take a while to overcome. The hope with ACA is that it becomes Social Security or Medicare - two popular welfare programs that are embedded into the system and are utterly impossible to remove. If that happens, the country benefits and we might be able to have an election where we don't discuss "soaring healthcare costs" one day.

 

The only person who can really benefit from ACA at this point is Obama - and only in a historical sense. If ACA can be to him what Medicare is to LBJ and Social Security is to FDR, you aren't going to be able to define his term in office as anything but a historical turning point.

 

 

I'll give this post more credence when I receive your check in the mail for my analysis.

[chipwhich]

I honestly don't see ACA as a political benefit for Democrats. It's clearly done some political damage that is going to take a while to overcome.

 

LOL so the ACA got Obama reelected, now the ACA did political damage.  Love the spin.

[ABQCOWBOY]

If anything, this is more damning to the thought that you can actually use the CBO as an effective means of passing legislature.   Clearly, and this is no surprise, the CBO was gamed.  It was then used to support a position that was not entirely accurate in it's representation.  That's not exactly news.  Many said this at the outset of the debate over Obamacare.  

[Duckus]

LOL so the ACA got Obama reelected, now the ACA did political damage.  Love the spin.

 

Actually, yes. 

 

The electorates of a mid-term and presidential election are vastly different so the same issue could have wildly different effects on outcome.

A presidential election has a much younger and more diverse turnout (more likely to support ACA) than a midterm which is older and white (less likely to support ACA). 

So yes, ACA could have gotten Obama elected and re-elected and also killed him in a midterm election. 

 

But enough of that, lets get back to creating straw men arguments on single payer.

 

Edited November 14, 2014 by Duckus

[btfoom]

If you don't have an opinion, I'm sure you can read WorldNetDaily quickly and find out what that opinion should be.

 

Just like you quoting the DailyKos, right???

 

By the way, here are some facts that the HuffPost and MSNBC won't let you know:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/13/3-things-white-house-doesnt-want-to-know-about-obamacare-plus-3-things-coming/

 

3 things White House doesn't want you to know about ObamaCare, plus 3 things coming in 2015 you aren’t going to like

1. HUGE DEFICITS AND NEW TAXES. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the latest projections for the net cost of ObamaCare over the next ten years are just over $1.4 trillion. Whereas President Obama promised in 2009 that it would cost less than $1 trillion over ten years. In order to partially pay for this, ObamaCare has added more than 20 new taxes totaling over $500 billion.

2. BUREAUCRACY. Speaking of Orwellian politics, ObamaCare includes 159 new boards and agencies to restrict and govern your health care choices.

3. STILL MORE BUREAUCRACY. Dysfunctional state exchanges with high deductible policies, narrow doctor networks, including federally-run exchanges in 36 states which may not be allowable under the law (SCOTUS currently considering this case). 

Here are three new things coming up in 2015 that you aren’t going to like:

1. PENALTIES WILL RISE – INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. In 2014, people are facing a penalty of $95 per person or 1% of income. 

In 2015, the penalty will more than triple to $325 per person or 2% of income, whichever is higher. 

If an American failed to get coverage this year, the penalty will be taken out of their tax refund in early 2015. 

2. SERIOUS RATE HIKES FOR CHEAPER OBAMACARE PLANS. According to Investor’s Business Daily, the lowest cost bronze plan will increase an average of 7 % in many cases, the lowest cost silver plan by 9%, and the lowest priced catastrophic policy will climb 18 percent on average. Double digit rate hikes are anticipated in several southern and Midwestern states including Kansas, Iowa, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Iowa, and Virginia.  

Subsidies will continue to be a huge part of the program. In 2014, subsidies provided ¾ of the premiums for the federally-run exchanges.  

3. EMPLOYER MANDATE WILL TAKE EFFECT. After being delayed for a year, large businesses (100 or more employees in 2015, 50 or more in 2016) will be required to offer affordable (and subsidized) health plans to at least 70 percent of their full time employees or face a $2,000-$3,000 penalty per employee.

This mandate will lead to fewer full time employees being hired.

[Hersh]

Just like you quoting the DailyKos, right???

 

By the way, here are some facts that the HuffPost and MSNBC won't let you know:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/13/3-things-white-house-doesnt-want-to-know-about-obamacare-plus-3-things-coming/

 

Do me a favor and look up health insurance premium increases from 1999-2009. Let us all know how that compares to inflation and how it compares to insurance premium increases these days. 

 

The reason I'm asking you to do it instead of posting it myself is that if I present you with the data (facts) you and the rest of the right wingers on this board simply won't believe it.

If anything, this is more damning to the thought that you can actually use the CBO as an effective means of passing legislature.   Clearly, and this is no surprise, the CBO was gamed.  It was then used to support a position that was not entirely accurate in it's representation.  That's not exactly news.  Many said this at the outset of the debate over Obamacare.  

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/01/republicans-dont-like-the-cbo-except-for-when-they-do/

 

 

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) has no shortage of charts, bullet points and studies to back up the GOP’s tax strategy, all of which he laid out Tuesday afternoon before a room of reporters. But, perhaps most prominently, Price wielded numbers from the Congressional Budget Office to make the case for extending all the Bush tax cuts permanently, as the House is poised to vote on this week.

 

"As the Congressional Budget Office has said, the growth rate if these [tax hikes] go into effect is 0.5 percent," Price told reporters. "If we're able to keep the rates the same, the growth rate is 4.4 percent."

It's not surprising that a legislator would rely on numbers from the CBO, given the office's long-standing reputation as a non-partisan, independent scorekeeper. But in the next breath, Price dismissed another major finding from the very same number crunchers.

When asked how the GOP would make up for the huge increase in the deficit that would result from making the Bush tax cuts permanent—which the CBO estimates will reduce revenues by $4.6 trillion—Price flatly denied that the numbers were valid. "We don't believe that keeping tax rates as they are right now costs money,”

 

What until the Republicans change how the CBO calculates tax cuts to make it seem as if they don't cause deficits.

[Predicto]

LOL so the ACA got Obama reelected, now the ACA did political damage.  Love the spin.

 

The ACA didn't get Obama reelected.

 

The GOP acting like petulant children and Tea Partiers sperging out all over the place is what got Obama reelected.

 

The ACA hurt him, but not enough to cost him reelection.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/01/republicans-dont-like-the-cbo-except-for-when-they-do/

 

 

 

 

 

That door swings both ways.   When the CBO provided revised numbers on the ACA, the administration was very quick to reprimand the CBO.   I'm not saying it's unique.  I'm saying it's stupid for Americans to accept any CBO findings as justification or proof positive, based on the statements made by Gruber.   Particularly when you are dealing with something as large and as expansive as ACA.

[chipwhich]

The ACA didn't get Obama reelected.

 

The GOP acting like petulant children and Tea Partiers sperging out all over the place is what got Obama reelected.

 

The ACA hurt him, but not enough to cost him reelection.  

 

I am pretty sure the mantra on this board was the Obama reelection was a referendum on the ACA.