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

[Wrong Direction]

But WD, not the CBO's model.. and again it's really not reasonable to blast the CBO's model in favor of a partisan one is it?

I understand why you assume my problem with their model is partisan, but I don't believe that to be so. I'll explain.

As I understand it (don't work for the CBO), their model for predicting the number of people who will lose health insurance through their employer is based on reality for Part D. In Part D, you have retirees from a company that otherwise provides health insurance to current workers. Many of those companies grandfathered their existing retirees into their existing retiree plans because to not do so would cause problems with their defined pensions and with retiree spouse coverage (if primary was dropped, many unemployed spouses would lose their coverage). So, what happened with Part D is many employers are letting their retiree coverage basically die off, but not adding new retirees into their own systems. Those new retirees are going to Part D, so the trickle is pretty slow.

Alternatively, the ACA offers coverage to absolutely everyone. If an employer drops coverage, they don't have to worry about the sick kid who lost their coverage. Additionally, there's a real overhead for an employer to maintain employee coverage. The employer has to have staff capable of hiring insurance brokers, who then negotiate contracts with insurance companies. Employers do get tax write-offs, but the total cost of administering your own employer plan is less than the cost of just stopping that plan and putting people into the exchanges.

Here's where the model comes in. The last sentence above is also true of Part D, so the CBO is assuming similar employer behavior. In an hugely uncertain political environment, I actually do think employers won't make major changes becuase for all we know the exchanges will go away. However, if we get any certainty in the first couple of years of that program in the form of stable exchanges, I strongly believe businesses will find it in their best interest to offload patients at a much faster rate than they did in Part D.

Are you kidding me? Don't make me vomit on my keyboard.... Conservatives were silent. Talk radio was silent.

You clearly haven't listened to talk radio much over the last 8ish years. They were not kind about Part D. The vitriol wasn't there, I agree, mostly because Bush was more of their guy, but the dissent in talk radio was there.

As for "more conservative" Paul Ryan Rep from Wisconson Mr. Soak the poor to balance the budget!!, he voted for it. He lobied for it.

Aye Ryan, Paul ®

I love Paul Ryan.

It doesn't create sticks, but it may use sticks... Man both parties have been using highway funding to make the states submit since the Eisenhower administration first built the interstate hwy system, now that's the ACA's fault? Nooooow Republicans object to that, given they've done the same thing countless times when in power?

I think you're confusing Republicans and conservatives. Consistent conservatives hold these objections against federal power. I'll be the first to admit the hypocrisy in the Republican party, particularly during Bush.

[Larry]

You are right that the ACA picks up a larger portion than traditional Medicaid. My point is that the federal budget picture makes that match unsustainable in the eyes of many. It provides states with huge incentives to drive up costs and diminishes their incentive to lower costs. This is the historical problem with programs like Welfare and Food Stamps. It was the crux of welfare reform. It is unsustainable.

Curious how the definition of "unsustainable" has now come to mean "The Republican Party has decided, for political reasons, to do everything they can to get rid of something which (in the case of Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, and Medicare) is successful and working. And they have almost enough political power to succeed in their efforts to ruin it."

[Wrong Direction]

Curious how the definition of "unsustainable" has now come to mean "The Republican Party has decided, for political reasons, to do everything they can to get rid of something which (in the case of Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, and Medicare) is successful and working. And they have almost enough political power to succeed in their efforts to ruin it."

Choose to ignore fiscal reality - and why welfare reform was originally successful - all you want. The fact is that states will have very little incentive to limit costs in the Medicaid expansion because they'll be spending the fed's money. That's a recipe for huge healthcare waste. Patients will have zero or close to zero cost sharing and states (which control payment rates, eligibility determinatinos and breadth of benefits) only have 10% cost sharing. They will be able to achieve similar state budget savings with smaller cuts to other programs.

The feds basically said: here, take this money and spend as much of it as you want, provided it includes my mandates and stays within some vauge spending restrictions. That's what welfare was before welfare reform, and is becoming once again. It's also why R's want to block grant Medicaid, so states don't have financial incentive to drive up total benefit costs.

[Larry]

Choose to ignore fiscal reality - and why welfare reform was originally successful - all you want. The fact is that states will have very little incentive to limit costs in the Medicaid expansion because they'll be spending the fed's money. That's a recipe for huge healthcare waste. Patients will have zero or close to zero cost sharing and states (which control payment rates, eligibility determinatinos and breadth of benefits) only have 10% cost sharing. They will be able to achieve similar state budget savings with smaller cuts to other programs.

The feds basically said: here, take this money and spend as much of it as you want, provided it includes my mandates and stays within some vauge spending restrictions. That's what welfare was before welfare reform, and is becoming once again. It's also why R's want to block grant Medicaid, so states don't have financial incentive to drive up total benefit costs.

There were some awfully good points in there. IMO, well thought out and reasoned.

I have some problem with the "opposing view" you presented, the "block grant", which, as year as I can tell, consists of the feds telling the states "Here, take all this money, and any money that you can figure out an excuse, you can divert to whatever else you want".

But IMO, your observation of pressures to grossly extend coverage appear (at least from my ignorance of the subject) to be valid ones.

[Wrong Direction]

I could be wrong, but I'm 99% sure block granted programs still come with basic restrictions relating to the intended use of the money. Welfare reform block granted welfare payments. This forced states to target who got the money, but the feds were still able to limit the duration of eligibility...so block granting does have some ties.

[Son of Gadsden]

For a free market to work, it requires several things. First and for most that people can make good decisions.

I have much more faith in the American people to make good decisions than I have faith that the government won't make bad ones. Like most men with power, government only pushes for more...and they are willing to offer you whatever incentives you want for "free" as long as you give them some more power.

There are many countries that have a more socialized health care system than us that at least appear to be paying less than us- most notably by reducing over head costs.

Examples? I've heard Canada and the UK mentioned the most often, yet I have contacts in each that all say they hate it...and that's because I seriously asked them how they liked it...not because I'm trying to trash it. Regardless, I don't see how this particular system is sustainable..and even if it is, I see absolutely no solutions it brings compared to what we have now. I see money being taken from one pocket, and put in the other, and the government gaining MORE power it doesn't deserve or need.

Do you really want to claim that "corruption" doesn't happen in private industry?

Let's say, that people don't embezzle money from their employer?

The difference is, those people get fired. Those people don't have access to nuclear weapons and armies. Those people can't wage wars and enact legislation on the rest of us. There is absolutely no comparison. Embezzlement and the Third Reich are worlds apart.

[JMS]

For a free market to work, it requires several things. First and for most that people can make good decisions.

.

I have much more faith in the American people to make good decisions than I have faith that the government won't make bad ones. Like most men with power, government only pushes for more...and they are willing to offer you whatever incentives you want for "free" as long as you give them some more power.

Everybody realizes health insurance companies in the United States are legislatively exempt from competition don't they? Free market indeed. :doh:

Choice? You have a choice maybe over what logo appears on your bill. That's a long way from having a choice. For free market to work first and for most you have to have competition. without competition you by definition don't have a FREE MARKET !. The United States hasn't had competition in the medical insurance industry since we passed the McCarran- Ferguson Act in 1945. It's an antitrust exemption for the industry. It outlaws cross state competition and puts each state in charge of saying who can offer policies in it's territory; It further allows insurance companies to collude and set prices to eliminate competition.

Why would congress do this? Because back in the day we had non profits running the healthcare industry even insurance companies. The thought was never to set up a free market it was to set up a public trust of sorts. Competition was seen to be too expensive. The problem was when we went to for profit companies for delivery we never reintroduced competition!!

Folks who talk about free market are kidding themselves. Medicine is so specialized today a free market system would not, and has never worked to deliver such goods anywhere in teh world; especially not here. IT is impossible to deliver services via a free market because the services have long ago eclipsed the consumer’s ability to afford them; That's why we have insurance. And insurance by it's very nature is collectivism. Healthy people paying for the services of the sick so they will have the safety of the collective when they get sick.

---------- Post added July-20th-2012 at 11:22 PM ----------

Where does the cost savings come from? The fines I, and plenty of others, will pay?

The fines take away the financial incentive for the healthy to avoid buying insurance. Some young healthy punk thinks he'll avoid buying insurance and save himself money.

The penalty ensures that's not a viable savings plan. It won't generate much money because folks will buy insurance...

The "savings" is actually not really savings. Healthcare is growing like twice the rate of inflation for decades. The "savings" comes from modestly curbing this growth. That will save a few hundred Billion years 1-10 and 1.2 trillion over years 11-20. The bad news is the government will spend conservatively 20 trillion over the first ten years on healthcare as it pays for about 40% of all the services, and likely 40 trillion over the second ten years so the "savings" isn't really that significant.

---------- Post added July-20th-2012 at 11:25 PM ----------

Curious how the definition of "unsustainable" has now come to mean "The Republican Party has decided, for political reasons, to do everything they can to get rid of something which (in the case of Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, and Medicare) is successful and working. And they have almost enough political power to succeed in their efforts to ruin it."

Unsustainable, you have to love it. When the Republicans took over congress, they passed a rule that any money they spent would have to be matched by an offsetting cut somewhere else. Sounds great right? Only they specifically gave themselves an exemption for cutting the ACA.

Repealing it would cost hundreds of billions so, so they wrote themselves an exemption in their spending policy, So they could cut ACA, even though it would add to the deficit, which of coarse they won't pay for!!!... Unsustainable indeed.

Yep, ACA and Social Security are "unsustainable". You got to love it.

Bush tax cuts cost twice as much as the ACA over 10 years, and cost in 10 years what the social security deficit will cost us in 70 years.... But they are not even questioning the sustainability of those cuts, but social security and the ACA are unsustainable?

Edited July 21, 2012 by JMS

[PeterMP]

I have much more faith in the American people to make good decisions than I have faith that the government won't make bad ones. Like most men with power, government only pushes for more...and they are willing to offer you whatever incentives you want for "free" as long as you give them some more power.

It doesn't really matter with respect to the point. And there is plenty of evidence that people don't in complex situations like healthcare.

Examples? I've heard Canada and the UK mentioned the most often, yet I have contacts in each that all say they hate it...and that's because I seriously asked them how they liked it...not because I'm trying to trash it. Regardless, I don't see how this particular system is sustainable..and even if it is, I see absolutely no solutions it brings compared to what we have now. I see money being taken from one pocket, and put in the other, and the government gaining MORE power it doesn't deserve or need.

You must know a non-average population of Canadians. Multiple polls show they are in general happy with their healthcare system and prefer their healthcare system to a "free market" approach. And generally want healthcare delivered through a non-profit manner:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/29/canadians-mixed-system-health-care_n_1636796.html

This is older, but 63% of the British say that they think their health care system is a good value.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2048

The difference is, those people get fired. Those people don't have access to nuclear weapons and armies. Those people can't wage wars and enact legislation on the rest of us. There is absolutely no comparison. Embezzlement and the Third Reich are worlds apart.

So now going to a more federally regulated healthcare system is going to lead to the Third Reich?

Or cause government leaders to use nuclear weapons?

[Son of Gadsden]

It doesn't really matter with respect to the point. And there is plenty of evidence that people don't in complex situations like healthcare.

You must know a non-average population of Canadians. Multiple polls show they are in general happy with their healthcare system and prefer their healthcare system to a "free market" approach. And generally want healthcare delivered through a non-profit manner:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/29/canadians-mixed-system-health-care_n_1636796.html

This is older, but 63% of the British say that they think their health care system is a good value.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2048

So now going to a more federally regulated healthcare system is going to lead to the Third Reich?

Or cause government leaders to use nuclear weapons?

The point behind everything I just said is we are handing more and more power to government. You trust the government with your own health more than you trust yourself? You trust a broke, deep in debt government that has no respect to it's own means or what it does with it's money with YOUR money? Our government is already bigger than the Constitution restricts it to be, and we want to give it more power. The states are run through tyranny rather than practicing their own sovereignty that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence established for them. 26 states oppose this health care system, yet are being unlawfully forced to bear it. The point is we are sitting here applauding to these changes the same way the German people applauded theirs I am sure. The same way the Soviets did, I'm sure. They welcomed Fascism and Communism with open arms also, but clearly, many of us failed history class. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

---------- Post added July-21st-2012 at 11:38 AM ----------

Everybody realizes health insurance companies in the United States are legislatively exempt from competition don't they? Free market indeed. :doh:

Choice? You have a choice maybe over what logo appears on your bill. That's a long way from having a choice. For free market to work first and for most you have to have competition. without competition you by definition don't have a FREE MARKET !. The United States hasn't had competition in the medical insurance industry since we passed the McCarran- Ferguson Act in 1945. It's an antitrust exemption for the industry. It outlaws cross state competition and puts each state in charge of saying who can offer policies in it's territory; It further allows insurance companies to collude and set prices to eliminate competition.

Why would congress do this? Because back in the day we had non profits running the healthcare industry even insurance companies. The thought was never to set up a free market it was to set up a public trust of sorts. Competition was seen to be too expensive. The problem was when we went to for profit companies for delivery we never reintroduced competition!!

Folks who talk about free market are kidding themselves. Medicine is so specialized today a free market system would not, and has never worked to deliver such goods anywhere in teh world; especially not here. IT is impossible to deliver services via a free market because the services have long ago eclipsed the consumer’s ability to afford them; That's why we have insurance. And insurance by it's very nature is collectivism. Healthy people paying for the services of the sick so they will have the safety of the collective when they get sick.

I'm aware. However, I don't agree with your opinion on free market. I will always believe in free market and the people before I believe in the government. The government can't even make a simple mathematical "collectivist" system such as "social security" work...so you want to hand them a complicated system of health care!? I just don't get the logic there man. One thing that has been continuous over time: the government will let you down.

[PeterMP]

Our government is already bigger than the Constitution restricts it to be, and we want to give it more power. The states are run through tyranny rather than practicing their own sovereignty that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence established for them. 26 states oppose this health care system, yet are being unlawfully forced to bear it.

1. Do you not believe the Constitution is correct with respect to the Supreme Court being the interpert of the Constitution?

2. States have always had to "bear" things that they opposed: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.html

3. Are you really claiming that a socialist/democratic system isn't possible? That the French, Swiss, and Canadians are headed towards a Soviet or Nazi style government?

Do you have any reason to believe that you are making good decisions with respect to your healthcare?

Do you have any actual data that your doctor is a good doctor? Do you have any data that indicates that his patients long term have "positive" out comes, especially in an economical manner?

**EDIT**

Your argument essentially requires that people can't do a good job of electing their representative (and if people are doing a good job of that, then it raises the issue of all the problems you say the government has actually problems), BUT that people can do a good job of making decisions with respect to their healthcare.

That seems unlikely to me.

Edited July 21, 2012 by PeterMP

[LadySkinsFan]

It's not a free market if there is no real choice except between various for profit health insurance companies.

Now, if there was a not for profit public option, that is not tied to employment with sliding scale premiums, no high rates for pre-existing conditions, no jumping through hoops for coverage, high ceiling and mandated percentage to admin, that would provide real competition to regulate prices. I'll bet large numbers of people would opt out of their employer-offered policies and sign up for the public option. It would be a better value that the for profit companies can offer, because in the end, the bottom line (profit) is what drives their policies. My friend recently had over $800 of medical bills and her employer-offered insurance will cover only $100. What is the sense of paying all that money in premiums if the insurance companies never payout even what they take in from you?

Reality: We are all going to get sick and die of SOMETHING. Paying thousands of dollars in premiums that you may never have access to when you most need it, have to deal with people who aren't doctors telling you what you need or what they will cover, it's a joke. The health insurance industry is the biggest scam in the United States.

[Son of Gadsden]

1. Do you not believe the Constitution is correct with respect to the Supreme Court being the interpert of the Constitution?

2. States have always had to "bear" things that they opposed: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.html

3. Are you really claiming that a socialist/democratic system isn't possible? That the French, Swiss, and Canadians are headed towards a Soviet or Nazi style government?

Do you have any reason to believe that you are making good decisions with respect to your healthcare?

Do you have any actual data that your doctor is a good doctor? Do you have any data that indicates that his patients long term have "positive" out comes, especially in an economical manner?

**EDIT**

Your argument essentially requires that people can't do a good job of electing their representative (and if people are doing a good job of that, then it raises the issue of all the problems you say the government has actually problems), BUT that people can do a good job of making decisions with respect to their healthcare.

That seems unlikely to me.

Where exactly does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution? Where is the word "interpret" found in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution?

"Interpret" if you will, but the 10th Amendment plainly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Health care is not delegated by the Constitution. But hey, even if they had this mysterious power to interpret the Constitution the way they see fit, it was a 4-5 decision...4 of the justices said it's NOT Constitutional. Actually more than that, because it was held up by the governments ability to tax, not mandate. The mandate was unconstitutional. Also, the Supreme Court also held up slavery as Constitutional, held up segregation as Constitutional, and held up Roosevelt's wackjob bill sending all Japanese American's to internment camps as Constitutional. They aren't exactly the most stand up, Constitutional court in the world.

-Adding to this, our own Declaration of Independence states: "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." States, in those days meant "nations". We have 50 independent nations that are in a union. It was this argument that caused the South to secede before...and the North almost before them.

I'm claiming there is no need for a "socialist/democratic" system in a country that was established as a free market/democracy.

Yes, I have faith that I know what is best for me before the government does. Absolutely. I also have faith that I know what's best for my children in the future, not the government.

I don't understand what the point of your argument is, does the government have a better ability of being able to produce better doctors than I have now? They sure haven't shown that in public school in the case of teachers.

So you're saying the people can't do a good job of finding their own doctors and taking care of themselves, but they CAN do a good job of electing their masters? Your argument is no less contradicting than mine...the only difference is if I make a bad decision on choosing health care, it's only me that's affected. Seems like a flawed logic to say the least.

Deep down, you and I's argument seems simple: You believe the government should babysit the American people and save them from themselves, and I say the American people are not babies, and can take care of themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I'm getting from it. Might have to just agree to disagree on belief here, because I'll never buy that.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Son of Gadsden

[Jumbo]

At this point, I would like to submit my application for a trademark on a new cultural phrase..."Obamadon'tcare"...it's not really a political thing on my end...i just think we should have it to join its fellow...

Edited July 21, 2012 by Jumbo

[Son of Gadsden]

At this point, I would like to submit my application for a trademark on a new cultural phrase..."Obamadon'tcare"...it's not really a political thing on my end...i just think we should have it to join its fellow...

Awwww Herman Cain is so going to sue you Jumbo. He's already got "Obamadoesn'tcare".

[Jumbo]

Awwww Herman Cain is so going to sue you Jumbo. He's already got "Obamadoesn'tcare".

I am forever one step behind when it comes to patenting good ideas.

[CrabR]

there is a fine line between to much gvt and not enough. I believe we could cut 30-50% of the federal gvt now. Many things were put in place to protect us from greedy companies but they whittle con these constrains by buying congressmen. Lot at wall street for example. The laws were enacted after the 29 crash to protect the citizen from crooks. Then wall street whittled them down to cause the 08 crash. To date little has been put back in place to protect the average citizen from them

The constitution was written 250 fifty years ago times change and it should be address every so often, I think it was Jefferson that said it should be reviewed every 20 years. It is not perfect and the founding fathers knew that

I think Roberts made the right call on obamacare his argument was the best of the lot. The supreme court should have term limits as should congress. There should be a limit on campaign spending. Make is so much per capita that way it would be fair

Here it is July and I am fed up with political ads, i lflip the channel every time one comes on

[Larry]

The point behind everything I just said is we are handing more and more power to government. You trust the government with your own health more than you trust yourself? You trust a broke, deep in debt government that has no respect to it's own means or what it does with it's money with YOUR money? Our government is already bigger than the Constitution restricts it to be, and we want to give it more power. The states are run through tyranny rather than practicing their own sovereignty that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence established for them. 26 states oppose this health care system, yet are being unlawfully forced to bear it. The point is we are sitting here applauding to these changes the same way the German people applauded theirs I am sure. The same way the Soviets did, I'm sure. They welcomed Fascism and Communism with open arms also, but clearly, many of us failed history class. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm aware. However, I don't agree with your opinion on free market. I will always believe in free market and the people before I believe in the government. The government can't even make a simple mathematical "collectivist" system such as "social security" work...so you want to hand them a complicated system of health care!? I just don't get the logic there man. One thing that has been continuous over time: the government will let you down.

Why is it that every time I read a post that consists entirely of empty platitudes trying to wrap themselves in a flag, I think of the guy in Green Acres, who, every time he'd pontificate, a fife and drum would start playing in the background?

(Afraid that the answer is "because you're old".)

Edited July 21, 2012 by Larry

[Son of Gadsden]

The constitution was written 250 fifty years ago times change and it should be address every so often, I think it was Jefferson that said it should be reviewed every 20 years. It is not perfect and the founding fathers knew that[/Quote]

However, that's the belief of a single man and was not included in the Constitution. If everyone believed that, it would expire every 19 years.

I think Roberts made the right call on obamacare his argument was the best of the lot. The supreme court should have term limits as should congress. There should be a limit on campaign spending. Make is so much per capita that way it would be fair

Here it is July and I am fed up with political ads, i lflip the channel every time one comes on

Switch to Netflix. No ads. haha. Get rid of political parties altogether with those term limits and you'll get a real democracy, and the negative ads will severely decrease. There isn't a problem in this country that we can't blame on the Republicans and Democrats.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Son of Gadsden

[Wrong Direction]

Folks who talk about free market are kidding themselves. Medicine is so specialized today a free market system would not, and has never worked to deliver such goods anywhere in teh world; especially not here. IT is impossible to deliver services via a free market because the services have long ago eclipsed the consumer’s ability to afford them; That's why we have insurance. And insurance by it's very nature is collectivism. Healthy people paying for the services of the sick so they will have the safety of the collective when they get sick.

I reject the idea that something much more resembling a free market in healthcare cannot work simply because it hasn't been tried. If you think about the nature of free markets, you recognize that they generate more efficiency but also necessarily push the marketplace to the point that access is limited for a sector (in this case poor and sick). However, this is where I become less conservative and support help for the sick and poor to participate in the marketplace in the form of subsidies. In terms of high-level philosophy, my position (and that of Romney and most R's) doesn't differ significantly from Obama's. We all want to give assistance to the sick and poor so they aren't excluded from the system. The difference isn't whether to help them, the difference is how. Obama is taking a lot of financial risk out of the hands of consumers, particularly the millions of poor and sick, and I absolutely believe that will result in higher prices over the long run than a system that adds the consumer to the financial equation.

The fines take away the financial incentive for the healthy to avoid buying insurance. Some young healthy punk thinks he'll avoid buying insurance and save himself money.

The penalty ensures that's not a viable savings plan. It won't generate much money because folks will buy insurance...

This is an over-statement on a couple of levels. First, the fines don't take away the financial incentive not to buy insurance. They somewhat diminish it, but the supreme court even said (Roberts) that it's a tax fine and not a penalty because the amount is small relative to the cost of insurance. The fine does not, therefore, ensure that not buying insurance is "not a viable savings plan."

The "savings" is actually not really savings. Healthcare is growing like twice the rate of inflation for decades. The "savings" comes from modestly curbing this growth. That will save a few hundred Billion years 1-10 and 1.2 trillion over years 11-20. The bad news is the government will spend conservatively 20 trillion over the first ten years on healthcare as it pays for about 40% of all the services, and likely 40 trillion over the second ten years so the "savings" isn't really that significant.

You should check out the Washington Post's fact check on the second 10 years. First, the 1.2 trillion savings number was extrapolated by either Rahm or Weiner (forget) and based on very rough guesstimates by the CBO as it relates to GDP in the second 10 years of the bill. Even years 5-10 become very hard to score. Years 10-20 are basically a total shot in the dark given all of the assumptions and uncertainties.

Bush tax cuts cost twice as much as the ACA over 10 years, and cost in 10 years what the social security deficit will cost us in 70 years.... But they are not even questioning the sustainability of those cuts, but social security and the ACA are unsustainable?

So Republican mistakes or bad politics of the past automatically invalidate current arguments?

Nobody here is claiming that the R's are 100% genuine in every criticism or historically consistent. This is politics. Neither party has any credibility in that regard.

The truth is that this bill has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts and very very little to do with Part D. Obama proposed a major healthcare reform and something with that title is badly needed in America. Obama's reform does a lot to handle the coverage issue, but does not address the cost issue that is the biggest fiscal problem this country faces over the next century. That's the biggest problem. Even the benefits of greater coverage are mitigated by the fact that this country still has big long term issues respecting access. Insurance of any form isn't nearly as helpful if you have to wait a minimum 1-2 months for an appointment. That's easily where this country is headed. Now, consider where patients will go if they need care and cannot get an appointment...the very costly emergency room.

My position is what it is because I think we can accomplish what Obama accomplishes on coverage while also significantly changing the cost equation AND providing for better access through reforms the president has not proposed.

Bottom line: if this country does nothing but implement ObamaCare, we still have budget busting cost issues that will cause massive cuts to all kinds of federal programs, including healthcare, and higher taxes. We need to do better.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Wrong Direction

[PeterMP]

Where exactly does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution? Where is the word "interpret" found in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution?

The Constitution doesn't use the word interpert, but it clearly states:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution"

The Obama healthcare law is a law arising under this Constitution.

"Interpret" if you will, but the 10th Amendment plainly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Health care is not delegated by the Constitution.

But it doesn't state that the powers excplitially delegated are the States or people's write, and in some cases it broadly grants power to the federal government with respect to the ability to tax and regulate inter-state commerce.

I'm claiming there is no need for a "socialist/democratic" system in a country that was established as a free market/democracy.

And the US was not established as a free market (there would be no need to do things like regulate interstate commerce in a free market or tax things like whiskey) or a democracy.

Try learning some history. I think you said before people that don't know history are bound to repeat it.

What happens to people that think they know history, but don't really?

Yes, I have faith that I know what is best for me before the government does. Absolutely. I also have faith that I know what's best for my children in the future, not the government.

I'll ask again, why? What evidence or information do you have that suggests that your doctors are "good"? Do you have any real information at all about the long term survival or health rate of their patients?

So you're saying the people can't do a good job of finding their own doctors and taking care of themselves, but they CAN do a good job of electing their masters? Your argument is no less contradicting than mine...the only difference is if I make a bad decision on choosing health care, it's only me that's affected. Seems like a flawed logic to say the least.

And of course I haven't said that, which only shows me the problems you have with reading comprehension.

I actually think people on average do a pretty poor job of picking their doctors and their elected representatives.

Deep down, you and I's argument seems simple: You believe the government should babysit the American people and save them from themselves, and I say the American people are not babies, and can take care of themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I'm getting from it. Might have to just agree to disagree on belief here, because I'll never buy that.

My whole point is with respect to healthcare there are advantages to a centeralized system with respect to reducing over head costs.

In addition, there are good reasons to believe that a free market will fail (i.e. people can't make good decisions with respect to complex issues like healthcare).

If given two choices, one of which might fail (a centeralized system), but will have lower over head costs vs. a system that we expect will fail (a free market), doesn't it make sense to choose the one that will give you some "benefit"?

Given the choice of two options, doesn't the one that seems less bad seem superior?

Free markets give you people that make poor and uninformed decisions AND high over head costs.

Centeralized healthcare might give you poor decisions, but at least you can control your over head costs.

Add to that despite your claim of knowing people where there is a centeralized system don't like them, that a large number of polls show in general the majority of the people in those systems actually do like their healthcare, I certainly don't see the reason to reject the idea out right.

It has nothing to do with baby sitting anybody. It has to do with doing what makes sense.

Edited July 22, 2012 by PeterMP

[Son of Gadsden]

The Constitution doesn't use the word interpert, but it clearly states:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution"

The Obama healthcare law is a law arising under this Constitution.

But it doesn't state that the powers excplitially delegated are the States or people's write, and in some cases it broadly grants power to the federal government with respect to the ability to tax and regulate inter-state commerce.

And the US was not established as a free market (there would be no need to do things like regulate interstate commerce in a free market or tax things like whiskey) or a democracy.

Try learning some history. I think you said before people that don't know history are bound to repeat it.

What happens to people that think they know history, but don't really?

I'll ask again, why? What evidence or information do you have that suggests that your doctors are "good"? Do you have any real information at all about the long term survival or health rate of their patients?

And of course I haven't said that, which only shows me the problems you have with reading comprehension.

I actually think people on average do a pretty poor job of picking their doctors and their elected representatives.

My whole point is with respect to healthcare there are advantages to a centeralized system with respect to reducing over head costs.

In addition, there are good reasons to believe that a free market will fail (i.e. people can't make good decisions with respect to complex issues like healthcare).

If given two choices, one of which might fail (a centeralized system), but will have lower over head costs vs. a system that we expect will fail (a free market), doesn't it make sense to choose the one that will give you some "benefit"?

Given the choice of two options, doesn't the one that seems less bad seem superior?

Free markets give you people that make poor and uninformed decisions AND high over head costs.

Centeralized healthcare might give you poor decisions, but at least you can control your over head costs.

Add to that despite your claim of knowing people where there is a centeralized system don't like them, that a large number of polls show in general the majority of the people in those systems actually do like their healthcare, I certainly don't see the reason to reject the idea out right.

It has nothing to do with baby sitting anybody. It has to do with doing what makes sense.

Forgive me for not doing individual quotes here. Evidently I'm not quite so savy with codes, or more than likely just impatient.

I'm not seeing any argument for "interpretation" in your response. Judicial power doesn't mean power to change the constitution. There are clear violations in Article 1, sections 1, 7, and 8, and also to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 10, and 14. The 5th being a bit of a stretch, but could be an argument. As I said, the mandate was ruled unconstitutional...and changed from a mandate to a tax by the Supreme Court, which is not granted the power to legislate by the Constitution. If I'm wrong about that one, please correct me.

You can stretch the 10th Amendment and bend it to say what you wish all you want, but it clearly states that all powers not given to the feds by the Constitutional are the states'. Health insurance is not interstate commerce, it is intrastate commerce...therefore is not allowed via the Commerce Clause that you are referring to. So as I said before, if the states' want to delegate healthcare via the tax idea, it's their right. I've seen nothing from you proving that wrong. I see your interpretation of the Constitution, which, like the Supreme Court's interpretation, holds no water...at least no Constitutional water if there is such a thing.

Very well, a point made. There is no mention of a free market in the Constitution. However, we do in fact have a free market economic system. It is not a "pure" free market, but in that note there is also no "pure" democracy. Not really a democracy at all, in fact. An indirect democracy isn't really democracy. I guess that's a different subject altogether though.

But, to answer your question for "What happens when people think they know history, but don't really?" Socialism.

Your question about quality of doctors I find irrelevant, which is why I didn't answer. I'm trying to understand what point you are trying to make from it. Are you suggesting that the government has better knowledge of doctors, or that they can produce greater doctors? And if that is the case, you have faith in the government to chose your doctors for you? What happens when you don't like the doctor the government chose? My point to that was, I've had several teachers in government public school whom I've found to be idiots that had no idea what they were talking about. So you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the government would know quality control if it slapped them in the face.

But, hell, why not answer the question anyway. I'm still alive. I'm well. So, my answer is yes. I believe my doctors are pretty good. However, ironically enough, and supporting to your point: I've had a torn ACL and meniscus that has become chronic...by therapy advice. I say therapists because all 3 doctors I have seen say there is nothing wrong, yet my left leg has been proven to be 42% weaker than my right, i suffer from commonly occurring dislocations and severe pain, and by the therapists calculations I'll be sporting a wheelchair in my 30's. All from a motocross accident. Duke medical center has told me I have a serious problem, but because the doctors in my area are idiots, the MRI's are useless...so they need to wait for a severe dislocation to take a look at it. Hoping they are better. So, my answer is that I have faith in some of my doctors, and not in others. However, in regards to my point, if I don't like the doctor or don't have faith in them...I'm free to go see another. And I believe very much in Duke's doctors.

If I supposedly incorrectly comprehended what you said, then I don't see a logical argument from you at all on that. If you believe that people can't elect proper representatives, then you don't believe in government, yet you want to give them access to your health care. I don't believe people can properly elect representatives, not do I care if they can choose proper health care. The point is it is their decision. It's a free country, and if they want to find good doctors, it is their job to research and find them. Once again, I'm confused at the point you are trying to make, not because a matter of reading comprehension, but lack of logical explanation. I see "You're wrong and it doesn't work that way", but no real Constitutional explanations, just interpretations.

Everything in your last claim is your opinion. Your opinion is that people can't make good decisions on their health care. Even if that could be proven as fact, it is also your opinion that government can make better decisions than the people. The point that I find most ridiculous is suggesting that a free market is expected to fail whereas a centralized system might fail. I expect the centralized system to fail, and i expect the free market system will do fine if put in place correctly.

My claim of knowing people that don't like the healthcare systems of Canada and Europe was a grain of salt comment. I respect my friends' decisions and trust their opinions. I don't expect you to do any such thing. However, the majority of people are sheep, so polls don't mean a lot to me. The overwhelming majority have supported a lot of terrible ideas in the past. I was never suggesting that the majority doesn't like the system. However, still, what "makes sense" to me is keeping the government out of my business.

I'm going to have to say that I side with everything "Wrong Direction" said above. I can't say I disagree with the idea of health care reform. I can say I disagree with the method of this one.

[PeterMP]

I'm not seeing any argument for "interpretation" in your response. Judicial power doesn't mean power to change the constitution. There are clear violations in Article 1, sections 1, 7, and 8, and also to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 10, and 14. The 5th being a bit of a stretch, but could be an argument. As I said, the mandate was ruled unconstitutional...and changed from a mandate to a tax by the Supreme Court, which is not granted the power to legislate by the Constitution. If I'm wrong about that one, please correct me.

The law doesn't say it isn't a tax, and in fact, I believe the lawyers that were supporting it in fact argued that they didn't think it was a tax, but if it should be considered a tax it should be Constitutional.

So the Supreme Court didn't change it from a mandate to tax. The law is vague, and they exercised judicial power with respect to it.

They decieded it was tax and given the Constitutional power of the government to tax, therefore constitutional.

You can stretch the 10th Amendment and bend it to say what you wish all you want, but it clearly states that all powers not given to the feds by the Constitutional are the states'. Health insurance is not interstate commerce, it is intrastate commerce...therefore is not allowed via the Commerce Clause that you are referring to. So as I said before, if the states' want to delegate healthcare via the tax idea, it's their right. I've seen nothing from you proving that wrong. I see your interpretation of the Constitution, which, like the Supreme Court's interpretation, holds no water...at least no Constitutional water if there is such a thing.

But healthcare is inter-state commerce.

And Congress has the power to tax.

Very well, a point made. There is no mention of a free market in the Constitution. However, we do in fact have a free market economic system. It is not a "pure" free market, but in that note there is also no "pure" democracy. Not really a democracy at all, in fact. An indirect democracy isn't really democracy. I guess that's a different subject altogether though.

We have a Republic, which isn't a democracy.

Your question about quality of doctors I find irrelevant, which is why I didn't answer. I'm trying to understand what point you are trying to make from it.

I'm making the point that a free market health care system will fail because people don't even have the necessary basic information to know if they are making good decisions.

Everything in your last claim is your opinion. Your opinion is that people can't make good decisions on their health care. Even if that could be proven as fact, it is also your opinion that government can make better decisions than the people. The point that I find most ridiculous is suggesting that a free market is expected to fail whereas a centralized system might fail. I expect the centralized system to fail, and i expect the free market system will do fine if put in place correctly.

1. I never said that government can make better decisions than people. In fact, I expect them to make bad decisions.

2. That centerally managed healthcare systems have lower overhead, and therefore reduced costs, is not a matter of my opinion. It is a based on several different studies that look at over head costs in different medical systems.

3. That people make poor decisions in complex situations, especially with respect to things like healthcare, again, is not my opinion. It is backed up by multiple studies. If you want some reading you can start with this:

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/71844.pdf

Why do you expect that a free market health care will do fine?

Why do you expect that centerally controlled systems will fail?

The NHS in Britain is over 50 years old and while it is undergone modifications, I don't see any reason to think it is going to fail any time soon.

[skins2victory]

I work hard and put my hours in every week to support myself, my family, and my own habits. Now my hard work is going to pay for everyone else’s too.

-Including the ones who don’t work at all, and expect to get everything for free while others work.

-Approximately 40% of the approximant 300 million US citizens don’t pay income tax. So basically this 40% will get this health care plan for free, when the hard working American do not, as they will be forced to pay there income taxes.

-The ones who eat fast food everyday giving themselves diabetes. There are an overwhelming number of these ones here in our country, we the tax payers will be paying for all of there diabetic needs.

-The ones who choose to smoke everyday and mess up there lungs. That’s fine if you smoke, I certainly don’t care what others choose to do, but I don’t want to have to pay for the problems that it will give them in the future.

-The stupid kid that decides it’s cool to jump off a bridge and break his leg today. Yes our tax money will be going to him.

-The list can go on and on for these people that we the tax payers will be paying for.

Heath care should not be a right, it should be a responsibility. Work hard, AND BUY YOUR OWN HEALTH CARE for yourself, for your own family, to support your own habits. Not to mention the wait list to be seen when you do have a problem is going to be very very long. There is not enough doctors to go around when you add millions of patients over night.

I am obviously not for Obamacare, it makes absolutely no sense.

[PeterMP]

I work hard and put my hours in every week to support myself, my family, and my own habits. Now my hard work is going to pay for everyone else’s too.

-Including the ones who don’t work at all, and expect to get everything for free while others work.

-Approximately 40% of the approximant 300 million US citizens don’t pay income tax. So basically this 40% will get this health care plan for free, when the hard working American do not, as they will be forced to pay there income taxes.

-The ones who eat fast food everyday giving themselves diabetes. There are an overwhelming number of these ones here in our country, we the tax payers will be paying for all of there diabetic needs.

-The ones who choose to smoke everyday and mess up there lungs. That’s fine if you smoke, I certainly don’t care what others choose to do, but I don’t want to have to pay for the problems that it will give them in the future.

-The stupid kid that decides it’s cool to jump off a bridge and break his leg today. Yes our tax money will be going to him.

-The list can go on and on for these people that we the tax payers will be paying for.

Heath care should not be a right, it should be a responsibility. Work hard, AND BUY YOUR OWN HEALTH CARE for yourself, for your own family, to support your own habits. Not to mention the wait list to be seen when you do have a problem is going to be very very long. There is not enough doctors to go around when you add millions of patients over night.

I am obviously not for Obamacare, it makes absolutely no sense.

Your already paying for these people.

Obamacare doesn't really change that one way or another.

[skins2victory]

Your already paying for these people.

Obamacare doesn't really change that one way or another.

Your taxes and mine will be increased significantly...... Therefore I am now paying for these people more than ever before.

Edited July 23, 2012 by skins2victory