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

[mistertim]

I see JMS took my Jackson Pollock comparison to heart.

[JMS]

BS. Show me where it states this in the Constitution or in Law. The House has passed budgets for consideration but Harry Reid has yet to bring any one of them to the floor for a vote. It's not even a case where they were voted down. They have never seen the light of the floor in the Senate. That's not on the GOP. That's on the Senate.

The Constitution places the power of the purse in Congress: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations

made by Law . . ... , This empowerment of the legislature is at the foundation of our constitutional order.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7

Congress is not a dictatorship. They have the lead role but must compromise to accomplish their task as all other branches of our government must compromise. Thus compromise is at the root of our government any branch not able to compromise is a huge problem. Congress most of all because it's budgetary responsibilites are key to so much the government does. Especially when we are in economic crisis as we are.

Edited July 12, 2012 by JMS

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Constitution places the power of the purse in Congress: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations

made by Law . . ... , This empowerment of the legislature is at the foundation of our constitutional order.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7

Congress is not a dictatorship. They have the lead role but must compromise to accomplish their task as all other branches of our government must compromise. Thus compromise is at the root of our government any branch not able to compromise is a huge problem. Congress most of all because it's budgetary responsibilites are key to so much the government does. Especially when we are in economic crisis as we are.

This say nothing at all about the House being responsible for passing a budget. It says Congress, which includes both the House and the Senate. Now, the House has already passed a budget, where is there an effective argument for not even allowing a budget to come to the floor in the Senate for a vote? How do you compromise on that?

[joe]

This say nothing at all about the House being responsible for passing a budget. It says Congress, which includes both the House and the Senate. Now, the House has already passed a budget, where is there an effective argument for not even allowing a budget to come to the floor in the Senate for a vote? How do you compromise on that?

Please. The House knew full well that the budget that they passed was going to be DOA in the senate. Just like all of the time they have spent trying to repeal the affordable health care act has been wasted, and they know full well it would be.

It is time for our leaders to come to the middle. Raise some taxes and cut some spending and finally start moving forward.

[JMS]

This say nothing at all about the House being responsible for passing a budget.

The house is the only body in the United States government which can levy taxes.

It says Congress, which includes both the House and the Senate.

Technically yes... but actually no. Only the House has the power to originate revenue bills... Only the House can originate taxes!..

Why? Excellent Question... At the time the Constitution was written and this power established the Senate was made up of members appointed by the State Governors and approved by the Legislatures. Every member of the House of Representatives was to be elected. If the Senate generated Revenue Bills it could be viewed by citizens as taxation without representation, Since Senators were not elected and would have tyrannical powers in levying taxes. The Founding Fathers were brilliant in limiting the taxing ability to only those members of Congress who were elected by a popular vote of the people.

• The President requests money for his various departments from the House Budgetary Commitee.
  
• The House then generates the Budget Request.
  
• The Senate likewise generates there budget, but their budget can not tax, can not originate new revenue..
  
• Once both houses pass there resolutions, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must then go back and be approved by both the House and Senate.
  

The House as the only body which can levi new revenue, and the body which first recieves the President's budget requests has the lead in the process. Although they need the concurence of the senate to actually pass the budget.

Now, the House has already passed a budget, where is there an effective argument for not even allowing a budget to come to the floor in the Senate for a vote? How do you compromise on that?

The senate rarely votes on the budget the house passes. The senate votes on one of their own and then it goes to a conference comitee to formulate the COMPROMISE.... Since the house refuses to compromise, and was actually in Open revolt when their own speaker attempted to compromise with the senate; We have no budget.

Edited July 13, 2012 by JMS

[Duckus]

ObamaCare gaining a bit in popularity. A 12 point swing nationally - support up 6%, opposition down 6%.

One of the most accurate polling outfits in the country found this week that President Obama's signature achievement is no longer unpopular with the majority of the country.

The Affordable Care Act, according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey, is now backed by 47 percent of Americans, up from 39 percent in April 2012. Opposition to the law in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding it is also down, from 53 to 47 percent.

The topline conclusion The Post put out is that opinion on the law remains deadlocked, which is very much the case. But another way of looking at it is that support or opposition to the law is increasingly partisan, which is what pretty much every survey shows, including the Post one.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/obamacare-is-no-longer-so-unpopular/259720/#.T_8UeX0lNCU.facebookhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/obamacare-is-no-longer-so-unpopular/259720/#.T_8UeX0lNCU.facebook

Edited July 13, 2012 by Duckus

[JMS]

ObamaCare gaining a bit in popularity. A 12 point swing nationally - support up 6%, opposition down 6%.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/obamacare-is-no-longer-so-unpopular/259720/#.T_8UeX0lNCU.facebookhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/obamacare-is-no-longer-so-unpopular/259720/#.T_8UeX0lNCU.facebook

The atlantic is a good source.. I heard that too, but when I tried to look for a refference I couldn't find a good one. I asumed it was not real. Nice job.

I personally think nobody knows what's in this bill yet. Up until the supreme court ruling those opposed to the bill had spent tens even hundreds of millions to discredit this bill.. Eviserate it in the court of public opinion. Now the supreme court has ruled, the money spicket has been turned off; and folks are starting to give it some reasonable consideration.

The pieces of the bill are popular, problem is one could write down those pieces on two or three pages and this monster has over 1000 more pages which gives some folks pause...

Edited July 13, 2012 by JMS

[ABQCOWBOY]

Please. The House knew full well that the budget that they passed was going to be DOA in the senate. Just like all of the time they have spent trying to repeal the affordable health care act has been wasted, and they know full well it would be.

It is time for our leaders to come to the middle. Raise some taxes and cut some spending and finally start moving forward.

How can you know this when no vote was ever taken on any one of the proposed budgets sent on to the Senate. Further, isn't that where compromise starts? Don't you first submit something and then you vote on it and then you compromise? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Don't tell me you or anybody knows jack about what would happen because you can't know the results of a given vote if the vote never happens.

[joe]

How can you know this when no vote was ever taken on any one of the proposed budgets sent on to the Senate. Further, isn't that where compromise starts? Don't you first submit something and then you vote on it and then you compromise? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Don't tell me you or anybody knows jack about what would happen because you can't know the results of a given vote if the vote never happens.

Sigh. We both know how the Senate would vote. The House knows how the Senate would vote. Anyone who is paying attention knows how the Senate would vote. Semantics does not help us move forward.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The house is the only body in the United States government which can levy taxes.

That's the way it is supposed to be but that is no longer the way it is. There are many examples of this happening in the Senate. However, in the case of the Budget, it's ineffectual. The House did start a budget, did pass a budget and according to procedure, passed it on to the Senate for a vote. A vote which has never taken place.

Technically yes... but actually no. Only the House has the power to originate revenue bills... Only the House can originate taxes!..

See above post.

The senate rarely votes on the budget the house passes. The senate votes on one of their own and then it goes to a conference comitee to formulate the COMPROMISE.... Since the house refuses to compromise, and was actually in Open revolt when their own speaker attempted to compromise with the senate; We have no budget.

But before any of this can happen, there has to be something passed in the Senate and since Reid has been there, nothing has been brought to the floor. The process stops in the Senate. You can't blame this on the GOP when nothing has been done, at all, in the Senate. What would you have the House do? They can not make the Senate vote on anything.

---------- Post added July-13th-2012 at 08:18 AM ----------

Sigh. We both know how the Senate would vote. The House knows how the Senate would vote. Anyone who is paying attention knows how the Senate would vote. Semantics does not help us move forward.

I do not know how the Senate would vote and neither do you but, let's make an assumption here. Lets say that the Senate did not pass the Budget. The Senate would then come back with counter proposal on the Budget and that is when negotiation on the budget would start. However, if you never bring it to the floor, this can not happen. This is the process by which budgets get passed. The Senate has to bring it to the floor in order for the process to continue.

[LadySkinsFan]

I don't trust the GOP to do anything of value for actual human beings unless they are 1%ers. Oh, and the corporations that are people too of course.

[joe]

I do not know how the Senate would vote and neither do you but, let's make an assumption here. Lets say that the Senate did not pass the Budget. The Senate would then come back with counter proposal on the Budget and that is when negotiation on the budget would start. However, if you never bring it to the floor, this can not happen. This is the process by which budgets get passed. The Senate has to bring it to the floor in order for the process to continue.

If you don't know how the Senate is going to vote you are not paying attention.

And, for the record, Congress does not work as you describe. I would advise you to read the wonderfully written "Showdown at Gucci Gulf" about the 1986 tax reform act or "The Bill, how legislation really becomes law" about the National Service Bill and you will see how things can and are actually be accomplished here in Washington.

I do not work on the Hill and never have, but I have many friends and family who have, and still do. Having grown up in D.C. my entire life, I get it from osmosis.

[Jumbo]

I do not work on the Hill and never have, but I have many friends and family who have, and still do. Having grown up in D.C. my entire life, I get it from osmosis.

It can be sort of a like a medical condition that you wish you could get effective treatment for, but none yet exists.

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you don't know how the Senate is going to vote you are not paying attention.

And, for the record, Congress does not work as you describe. I would advise you to read the wonderfully written "Showdown at Gucci Gulf" about the 1986 tax reform act or "The Bill, how legislation really becomes law" about the National Service Bill and you will see how things can and are actually be accomplished here in Washington.

I do not work on the Hill and never have, but I have many friends and family who have, and still do. Having grown up in D.C. my entire life, I get it from osmosis.

Fair enough. You tell me how it works. You tell me how you get a budget passed when the Senate will not even bring it to the floor for a vote. I'm patient, take your time.

[skinsmarydu]

It can be sort of a like a medical condition that you wish you could get effective treatment for, but none yet exists.

Or the treatment exists, but you can't afford it...

---------- Post added July-14th-2012 at 12:35 PM ----------

Btw, POTUS talkin healthcare on MSNBC live right now.

[LadySkinsFan]

If you don't know how the Senate is going to vote you are not paying attention.

And, for the record, Congress does not work as you describe. I would advise you to read the wonderfully written "Showdown at Gucci Gulf" about the 1986 tax reform act or "The Bill, how legislation really becomes law" about the National Service Bill and you will see how things can and are actually be accomplished here in Washington.

I do not work on the Hill and never have, but I have many friends and family who have, and still do. Having grown up in D.C. my entire life, I get it from osmosis.

Not only how a bill becomes law, but the Executive Branch gets to write the implementing and ongoing regulations, which can change the intent of a law. I saw this happen when I worked as a legislative aide. And I grew up around here and that really opened my eyes.

[Baculus]

It's hard for me to believe this. Yesterday's vote was congresses 33rd vote to repeal the ACA. It's really difficult to believe that's not overkill by republicans trying to "exploit" the AFA's "unpopularity", given they haven't been able to pass a budget in 3 years or take care of other important work for the american people.

This is like the 3rd bridge in "operation market garden", This is too much; they are overplaying their hand.

Plus, tens of millions have been spent on these useless repeal attempts; so much for economic thrift.

[skinsmarydu]

Not only how a bill becomes law, but the Executive Branch gets to write the implementing and ongoing regulations, which can change the intent of a law. I saw this happen when I worked as a legislative aide. And I grew up around here and that really opened my eyes.

And he's had to write his own legislation, like the ACA and jobs bill because Congress' #1 goal is to deny him a second term.

The 2010 election was about 'jobs, jobs, jabortion'(thanks Rachel)...tons of time wasted on trying to usurp rights (include voting in there) instead of helping the nation. When the GOP threatens to filibuster everything, nothing will get done for the good of the people, like you said, unless it's the 1% or corporatons that sometimes get subsidies or tax breaks.

[joe]

Fair enough. You tell me how it works. You tell me how you get a budget passed when the Senate will not even bring it to the floor for a vote. I'm patient, take your time.

Just like the tax reform act of 1986. Bipartisan compromise to draft legislation that both parties know will be passed, and signed by the president, before ever being introduced to either house of Congress.

There is an interesting article in todays Washington Post about falling over the cliff come January. If it happens, and all the Bush tax cuts are automatically repealed, all talk in Congress will be about cutting taxes and the Republicans will be able to say that they kept their pledge to never raise taxes.

[skinsmarydu]

Bush 41 has no idea who Grover Norquist is.

I thought that was funny.:hysterical:

[JMS]

That's the way it is supposed to be but that is no longer the way it is. There are many examples of this happening in the Senate.

No there really aren't. That's what makes the speaker of the house so powerful. He commands the power of the purse.

However, in the case of the Budget, it's ineffectual. The House did start a budget, did pass a budget and according to procedure, passed it on to the Senate for a vote. A vote which has never taken place.

Yes and didn't levy any new revenue! The house nor any branch of our government is a dictatorship. They all must compromise to achieve anything. The house passed a budget which was a big F You to the Senate. No new Reveue, doubled down on the failed economic policy of Bush II, and dismantled social programs... all without addressing the only real cost savings which could help the deficit... The defense budget. So the Senate refused to entertain it. The Dems want new revenue to go along with cuts in spending which they are already on record of accepting. The house knows it...... The Senate will compromise, will accept cuts, but requires the house to compromise too, and the house has declined to compromise.. So we have no budget for 3 years.

See above post.

But before any of this can happen, there has to be something passed in the Senate and since Reid has been there, nothing has been brought to the floor. The process stops in the Senate. You can't blame this on the GOP when nothing has been done, at all, in the Senate. What would you have the House do? They can not make the Senate vote on anything.

---------- Post added July-13th-2012 at 08:18 AM ----------

I do not know how the Senate would vote and neither do you but, let's make an assumption here. Lets say that the Senate did not pass the Budget. The Senate would then come back with counter proposal on the Budget and that is when negotiation on the budget would start. However, if you never bring it to the floor, this can not happen. This is the process by which budgets get passed. The Senate has to bring it to the floor in order for the process to continue.

[Wrong Direction]

For what it's worth, I'm hearing that many in government are now expecting many states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion because they don't belive the federal match of 90% is sustainable over time, which would eventually offload very high costs on states. Under this scenario, citizens in those states who opt out would be eligible to participate in the exchanges, so they'd have coverage available or have to face the penalty for not purchasing. I'm also hearing that the SC ruling might give states leeway to further opt-out of various parts of Medicaid, leaving what they choose to offer really up to each individual state.

There are many implications to all of this, and the general reasoning for states to feel that the feds won't be able to match is because there's a growing sense in both parties that our national debt is a true emergency and by far the most important issue that the president/congress will have to tackle in 2013. I think there's a very real chance of major legislation passing next year resulting in a minimum of $3-4 trillion in cuts over the next decade, many of which take place sooner than later.

I've been trying to think through the implications of the SC ruling a little bit, and one of them (I think) could very well be the end of Medicaid as we know it. The Republican plan to block grant Medicaid would allow states a lot of flexibility in basically providing premium support (and some wrap-around coverage) to their poor for use within the exchanges. This is just a guess, but I think it could happen along the lines of what Paul Ryan and Ron Wyden are proposing.

Maybe more importantly for 2013, the debt bomb (as Tom Coburn calls it) is ready to explode in the 2014/2015 timeframe, not coincidentally when the real costs of ObamaCare kick in but before the last major taxes in ObamaCare kick in (which I think is 2016 and beyond). With the addition of a lot of people to the exchanges, this will apparently raise the coming CBO score for the ACA.

What all of this means politically, I don't know, but I do think it'll mean Medicare is on the table for substantial cuts/re-structuring in 2013 in particular, but certainly beyond since Medicare is the primary driver of our long term liabilities.

[JMS]

For what it's worth, I'm hearing that many in government are now expecting many states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion because they don't belive the federal match of 90% is sustainable over time, which would eventually offload very high costs on states. Under this scenario, citizens in those states who opt out would be eligible to participate in the exchanges, so they'd have coverage available or have to face the penalty for not purchasing. I'm also hearing that the SC ruling might give states leeway to further opt-out of various parts of Medicaid, leaving what they choose to offer really up to each individual state.

The GOP has been hijacked by the extreme right. It's no wonder the GOP elected officials are compelled to take such extreme positions.

Let's see how long GOP governors keep their jobs when they turn down free medical insurance for 15% of their state and hundreds of millions in federal aid.

The "unsustainable" argument is a joke. Obama already paid for his Affordable care act. He did so by scraping Bush's un paid for healthcare bill back in 2006 which had such little impact that nobody even remembers it. You know the one which cost more than Obama's Affordable Care Act and took the form of huge grants to the insurance, drug, and hospital companies.

There are many implications to all of this, and the general reasoning for states to feel that the feds won't be able to match is because there's a growing sense in both parties that our national debt is a true emergency and by far the most important issue that the president/congress will have to tackle in 2013.

You do realize the entire motivation for the affordable care act was to save money. This argument is like saying we can't afford to buy groceries so we should just order carryout.

We are already paying for the nations uninsured, we are just doing it in the most costly way imaginable.. Giving them health insurance is a reform which saves money in the long run.

The Affordable Care Act costs let's say 1 trillion over 10 years... little less but let's say 1 trillion. We are spending almost 4 trillion a year on healthcare in this nation and it's the fastest growing part of our economy. So the ACA is a modest reform, costing us about 2% of the nations healthcare spending over that period. One which will save us hundreds of billions over the first 10 years, and more than a trillion over the second 10 years; Including giving healthcare to 30 million new Americans.

Edited July 19, 2012 by JMS

[Wrong Direction]

The GOP has been hijacked by the extreme right. It's no wonder the GOP elected officials are compelled to take such extreme positions.

Let's see how long GOP governors keep their jobs when they turn down free medical insurance for 15% of their state and hundreds of millions in federal aid.

The Medicaid expansion is not free. It costs states about $120 billion, even with the high federal match rates. Considering state budgets are already strapped by Medicaid, it's not a trivial addition.

Medicaid itself is a mess. Patients have worse outcomes. Almost half of doctors don't participate. Putting people in the exchanges could easily be considered a benefit to those beneficiaries.

The "unsustainable" argument is a joke. Obama already paid for his Affordable care act.

With the CLASS Act? With 10 years of revenues versus 6 years of exchanges? With low estimates of employers dropping insurance plans?

Look, even if you believe the original cost estimates from the CBO, none of these bills are happening in a vaccuum. We have trillion dollar deficits. Something has to change. A Federal 90% match rate for a state program is a recipe for high costs, and thus eventual cuts.

He did so by scraping Bush's un paid for healthcare bill back in 2006 which had such little impact that nobody even remembers it. You know the one which cost more than Obama's Affordable Care Act and took the form of huge grants to the insurance, drug, and hospital companies.

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about here. Bush did have an "unpaid for" healthcare bill; much of which was implemented in 2006 (passed in 2003). It's Medicare Part D. Costs are lower than projected and over 30 million people are receiving the benefit.

You do realize the entire motivation for the affordable care act was to save money.

huh?

This argument is like saying we can't afford to buy groceries so we should just order carryout.

We are already paying for the nations uninsured, we are just doing it in the most costly way imaginable.. Giving them health insurance is a reform which saves money in the long run.

Not according to the CBO.

The Affordable Care Act costs let's say 1 trillion over 10 years... little less but let's say 1 trillion. We are spending almost 4 trillion a year on healthcare in this nation and it's the fastest growing part of our economy. So the ACA is a modest reform, costing us about 2% of the nations healthcare spending over that period. One which will save us hundreds of billions over the first 10 years, and more than a trillion over the second 10 years; Including giving healthcare to 30 million new Americans.

Read this again and tell me it passes the sniff test. It gives healthcare to 30 million people, and saves a trillion? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. By the way, current estimates say prices will be higher because of the ACA.

[JMS]

The Medicaid expansion is not free. It costs states about $120 billion, even with the high federal match rates. Considering state budgets are already strapped by Medicaid, it's not a trivial addition.

Medicaid itself is a mess. Patients have worse outcomes. Almost half of doctors don't participate. Putting people in the exchanges could easily be considered a benefit to those beneficiaries.

The terms of the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are quite favorable for the states. You are right that Medicaid is a federal-state partnership, with the federal government spending at least $1 for every dollar a state spends. Normally, wealthier states receive a 1-to-1 match, while poorer states receive as high as a 3-to-1 match. But for people who become eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government will pick up the full tab initially and ultimately will spend $9 for every state dollar. My point is if a GOP Gov turns down all that federal cash to insure folks in his state, he will really be putting his party's political future at risk in that state. 10% of your electorate is a pretty large chunk of people to condemn to live without health insurance just because of you want to political posture.. oh and again, it's not like the states don't already pick up a piece of their healthcare costs anyway.(see below)..

Projections from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrate the generosity of the Medicaid expansion. For example, if Indiana spends an additional $60 million to $80 million a year from 2014 to 2019, some 300,000 people will become insured, and the federal government will send more than $8 billion to Indiana's Medicaid program. Indiana's cost per person would be a fraction of its costs for participants in the Healthy Indiana Plan, which was enacted in 2007 to expand Medicaid coverage by Indiana.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120720/OPINION13/207200314/David-Orentlicher-Opting-out-Medicaid-expansion-isn-t-right-call

With the CLASS Act? With 10 years of revenues versus 6 years of exchanges? With low estimates of employers dropping insurance plans?

Absolutely, but so what. It costs a lot of money to set up ACA initially, so Obama offset those startup costs by delaying benifits kicking in until a few years down the road. What's wrong with that? Obama wanted to make the ACA revenue neutral, not by his book but by the CBO's book, and he did. Good for him.

The employers dropping insurance plans is another GOP red herring.

CBO and JCT’s Estimates of the Effects of the

Affordable Care Act on the Number of People

Obtaining Employment-Based Health Insurance

Accordingly, in CBO and JCT’s judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the

ACA is unlikely and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=affordable%20care%20act%22%20employer%20dropping%20insurance&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcbo.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcbofiles%2Fattachments%2F03-15-ACA_and_Insurance_2.pdf&ei=WXQJUODVFsbb0QGJicnfAw&usg=AFQjCNERYzL7537U-kfG3Sh07bGFMJieqg

The point is if you work for a small company your health insurance is crap... It doesn't cost much, and if you get sick it won't cover much, and if you get really sick you will loose your insurance.. That's the way the system works today. ACA says they can't do that. Your insurance has to cover a base set of issues, and your costs can't jump if you use it, and you can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. This makes the cost of the plan go up, but more people getting coverage offset this cost increase, also the federal government is subsizing the cost of plans for small companys to futher offset the expense; hense the CBO's findings given above which directly refute your point.

Look, even if you believe the original cost estimates from the CBO, none of these bills are happening in a vaccuum. We have trillion dollar deficits. Something has to change. A Federal 90% match rate for a state program is a recipe for high costs, and thus eventual cuts.

Let's not take the "original CBO numbers", let's take the latest ones which say we will save even more money over the first ten years, and even more money over the second ten years.

As for our "trillion dollar deficit", the ten thousand pound gerilla in the budget room is healthcare costs. The government as the largest consumer of healthcare will go bankrupt over the next 12 years if healthcare costs are not gotten a handle on regardless of anything else they do. When I grew up in the 60's we spent like 4% of our GDP on healthcare. Under Reagan that number had grown to 10%. In the 2008's 16% by 2020 we will be spending 20% of our GDP on healthcare. With the federal government paying for about 40 percent of the nation's spiraling health-care bill (in 2003); healthcare is the biggest fiscal liability we face with regard to out of control spending which will bankrupt us... followed by out of control defense spending.

( On Pieces of Bush's "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act" passed in 2003 yielded benifits in 2006 being repealed to fund Obamacare )

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about here. Bush did have an "unpaid for" healthcare bill; much of which was implemented in 2006 (passed in 2003). It's Medicare Part D. Costs are lower than projected and over 30 million people are receiving the benefit.

You mean Bush used smoke and mirrors passing his healthcare bill in 2003 but having benifits kick in, in 2006? Aren't you outraged by that? No one is talking about repealing Part D; it’s simply become too popular with the GOP’s base of elderly white voters (not to mention Big Pharma).

No offense taken because I don't think you know what you are talking about either. Bush's "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act" passed in 2003 cost more than was projected. The cost estimate has increased twice since it was passed.

Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.[11] As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act#Costs

[T]he most interesting flip-flop isn’t about ObamaCare, it’s about the exceptional moment in 2003 when George W. Bush and the Republican congressional leadership—including current tightwad-in-chief Paul Ryan—whipped votes in favor of what was, at the time, the largest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson was in office. That was the creation of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The legislation was, in many ways, a like something straight out of the DC compromise blueprint. The basic idea was to do something Democrats wanted to do—make Medicare benefits more generous. But it was structured so as to be very favorable to pharmaceutical companies and insurance firms. And the pot was sweetened by including substantial money to faciitate seniors opting out of Medicare and into subsidized private plans. Republicans made a giant exception to their aversion to spending money on non-military matters for this, and it wasn’t paid for by offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. Only two Democratic Senators ended up voting for it, but at the same time Democrats didn’t filibuster it to death even though they had the votes….

And in an odd coda, the bill’s (Bush's Healthcare Plan) passage was integral to the birth of the Affordable Care Act. That’s because the deficit-financed subsidies to private insurers inside Medicare became offsetting spending that Democrats could cut in order to make ObamaCare deficit neutral. If the Bush administration had never created that program in the first place, Democrats wouldn’t have been able to cut it later on and use those savings to finance their own health care bill. They’d have either had to write a much stingier program or else include substantially more in the way of tax hikes. And yet even though the 2003 Medicare bill was controversial at the time, it seems to have basically been eliminated from memory. Now all good Republicans are against spending money on anything, but nobody proposes to repeal the basic benefit. It’s as if the whole thing never happened.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_06/the_longforgotten_medicare_exp038055.php

]

(On Obamacare saving money in the long run)

Not according to the CBO.

:doh:

YES ACCORDING TO THE CBO... The Cost of Obamacare Has Gone Down, Not Up

Republicans rushed to the microphones today to announce that new projections show that Obamacare will break the bank. In fact, says Fox News, a CBO reports says that it will cost "twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag."

You will be unsurprised to learn that this is not true. As Jon Cohn patiently explains here, the previous CBO report estimated the costs of expanded insurance coverage between 2012-21. The new report covers 2012-22. In other words, the new report includes an extra year compared to the previous one. That's the main reason that costs are higher.

In fact, CBO is quite clear on what an apples-to-apples comparison shows:

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

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/cost-obamacare-has-gone-down-not

Oh and in case you are wondering how the Republicans got their numbers so wrong?

Top Obamacare Critic's Op-Eds Drafted by PR Firm That Reps Drug, Health Care Clients

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/sally-pipes-pacific-research-institute-keybridge-communications

Read this again and tell me it passes the sniff test. It gives healthcare to 30 million people, and saves a trillion? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. By the way, current estimates say prices will be higher because of the ACA.

Yes if you really want to make yourself sick we could have a universal plan like the French have, our services go up; we cover everybody, and the folks paying for healthcare now save 50% on the dollar!! Yes there is that much inefficiency in our healthcare system which is currently the most expensive in the world by a far pace, and currently ranks 37th in the world in efficency by the World Health Organization.

Besides the numbers you object too aren't my numbers, those are the non partisan CBO's numbers, which is the gold standard in forcasting the economics of bills.

Dude you do realize these projections are very very modest don't you? Over the next ten years we will spend conservatively 40 trillion on healthcare costs. Obamacare will "save" us a few hundred billion. Over the next ten years after that we will likely spend 60 trillion conservatively and Obamacare is projected to save 1.2 trillion. I'll tell you right now if Obamacare is it for healthcare reform we are all bankrupt shortly after that first ten years. The reality is the "savings" in obamacare wich are estimated on a very conservative model ( could be many times higher)... Doesn't save money like today we spend 1$ tommorrow we spend $0.80... Healthcare cost has been going up twice the rate of inflation for decades... Obamacare's "savings" come from very modestly slowing those cost increases.

Edited July 20, 2012 by JMS