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

[Zguy28]

I don't know we seem to have done pretty well with oil gold, and silver goods which are all inelastic.

We don't have a free market healthcare system since the turn of the 20th century when specialization made healthcare too expensive for indivisuals to afford. Since that time we have had a collective healthcare system where healthy people pay into the system to care for those who get sick... The big difference between our collective system and that of the rest of the industrial world is our system is designed not to deliver good but to deliver profits, which it does exceedingly well. The rest of the world uses systms of universal coverage designed to deliver services, which they do much better and more efficiently than we do.

So those are really the two choices before you, a collective system designed to deliver profits, or a collective system designed to deliver services. The Obama care attmpts to reform the for profit system to ensure more services are delivered... It still leaves in tact a fatally flawed system which today wastes about half of the money it absorbs, based on the experiences of the rest of the industrialized world and is the greatest long term financial threat our nation faces.

I wouldn't base everything on experience, as this article demonstrates.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrymple-british-health-system-20120808

[Larry]

Just looking at a few things in the report.

1). Observing that the title of the report is well, I don't seem able to copy and paste, but it's basically that their projection hinges on whether it pushes costs down or not.

2). Observing that, as the pretty picture and the text on the second page of the PDF says, under their "baseline" projection (which assumes that existing laws remain in effect), the long term budget, while still not good, is considerably better than projected 2 years ago. Whereas their "alternative" projection, (which assumes that lots of laws will be changed, like assuming that the "doc fix" gets applied, that all temporary tax cuts become permanent except for the SS tax, AND THAT ALL OF THE OBAMACARE COST SAVING MECHANISMS ARE PHASED OUT), got slightly worse.

3). I haven't seen anything whatsoever that even implies that this study even looks at the effects of Obamacare.

This study does not look at "budget with Obamacare vs budget without Obamacare". It looks "what we predicted, with Obamacare, two years ago, vs what we predict, with Obamacare, now".

[Larry]

Well it does link to an actual PDF copy of the GAO report so are you saying the GAO is not a reliable source?

By the Way here is are a couple of quotes from that report.

"... the fenderal budget remains on an unsustainable path. .......... Under these assumptions, the long term outlook worsened slightly compared the pre PPACA January 2010 simulation"

What they're saying is we have unsustainable spending problems and as bad as medical spending was prior to Obamacare, Obamacare has made it worse.

Some really convenient editing, there. Like, taking one sentence, then skipping a few, then taking a different sentence.

However, I seem to be having trouble selecting and copying text from the document. I assume that the document is an image, rather than a text document. And I'm too lazy to type the whole thing in. (It's the first paragraph, on the second page of the pdf, if anybody wants to go look at the source.)

Here's what it says: (My summary of their summary.)

1) The effects of Obamacare on the long-term budget mostly depends on whether the cost containment parts of the bill, work.

2) Two projections were done in January of '10 (before Obamacare was passed), and in the Fall of '10 (after it was passed). Each projection looked at a "baseline" scenario (in which all existing laws remain), and an "alternate" projection (in which we assume that a lot of laws that are on the books, won't really happen)

2a) The January '10 projection was pre-Obamacare. The baseline projection, for example, assumed that all temporary tax cuts would expire on schedule, and that things like the Medicare payment reductions would take effect. The "alternative" projection assumed that all tax cuts except for the SS tax cut would be made permanent (and, in fact, that as the economy grows and natural progression tends to make taxes a higher percentage of GDP, that other, unspecified, tax cuts would be passed, to keep tax revenues from exceeding the historical average percentage of GDP). It assumed that the "doc fix" would continue. (That Medicare payments would not be automatically reduced, but would actually increase.)

2b) The Fall 2010 projections also produced two projections. The "baseline" again assumed that all existing legislation (which now includes Obamacare) continue. The "alternative" projection makes all of the assumptions that the previous alternative projection makes (that tax cuts would continue, that "doc fix" would continue.) AND it assumes that all of the parts of Obamacare that increase costs (things like increasing insurance coverage) continue, but that all of the parts that reduce costs get phased out after a few years.

3) Comparing the "with Obamacare baseline" and the "without Obamacare baseline", The Obamacare version shows "notable improvement" (their words). (Obamacare makes the long-term budget situation notable better, if all of the assumptions work.)

3) However, that "baseline" projection assumes that the cost-cutting provisions of Obamacare will remain in effect, and that they will work. There is some question about this. It may be a bad assumption.

4) If we compare the "pessimistic assumptions, and no Obamacare" projection, to the "pessimistic assumption, and we assume that all of the parts of Obamacare that cost money, cost money, but we assume that all the parts that save money, don't exist" projection, then things get worse, by a slight amount.

"Slight amount" is my characterization. If you'd rather have just numbers, then I will observe that, looking at the pretty picture just below the summary paragraph, and just applying Larry's eyeball (because I can't find actual numbers), It looks to me like:

• The "pessimistic scenario, including the parts of Obamacare that cost money, but without the parts that save money" projection says that, along about 2029, the national debt will be 200% of GDP.
  
  
• Whereas, with pretty much the same assumptions, but no Obamacare at all, the projection shows it as more like 195% of GDP.

What they're saying is we have unsustainable spending problems

No, it says we have unsustainable deficit problems. What the GOP says is "whenever somebody talks about the deficit, pretend that they said 'spending', because we wouldn't want people to get the impression that the lowest taxes in 70 years might be part of the problem".

and as bad as medical spending was prior to Obamacare, Obamacare has made it worse.

Uh, could you quote me that part? (Cause the part you selectively edited sure doesn't say that. But I'll confess I haven't read the whole thing.)

The opening paragraph that you cherry picked parts out of, says that in their baseline scenario Obamacare shows "notable improvement" compared to without Obamacare.

And it says that the parts of Obamacare that cost money, if you eliminate all of the cost-reducing parts makes things slightly worse.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Larry

[twa]

how have the cost cutting/savings worked out in the parts already in force?

I sure hope it reduces costs since my ins is going thru the roof for some reason

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Here is the pdf, straight from the GAO: http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/gao_022613.pdf

You may not like the national review, but this story backs up its claim with an actual document.

Um, this report is way more complicated than you seem to give credit, and I don't think it says what you think it says.

[JMS]

The Government Accountability Office stated today that Obamacare will add $6.2 trillion to the debt.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

:doh: how come these reports always always always come out in conservative rags.. and always always always turn out to be wrong, deliberite mis characterizations of what the CBO actually said..... This is like the fifth time isn't it? but I'll humor you....

[JMS]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

So according to the article in National Review... The Senate Staffers working for Republican Jefferson Sessions, came up with the 6.2 trillion number over 75 years, not the GAO. Session's staffers calculated that number based on what they think the GAO report says and attributed it to the GAO report... The number is nowhere in the actual GAO report.

Under this scenario, the “primary deficit” increases by 0.7 percent of GDP over the 75-year period. The GAO does not put a dollar value on that figure, but Senate Budget Committee staff has calculated, and GAO has confirmed, that it would amount to a $6.2 trillion increase in the federal deficit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

And how did the GAO report support such an wildly out of control deficit projection for Obamacare? Not by comparing healthcare costs under Obamacare vs No Obamacare as one might think....... No because then they would be directly conflicting with the CBO which says Obamacare will save us a few hundred billion over the first 10 years and more than a trillion over the second 10 years.... No the GAO report compares the most Rosie projection possible for Obamacare ( much more optimistic than what the CBO used ) to the most dire projection possible... and extended the time limit out beyond any reasonable ability to accurately predict ( 75 years)..... and gives us the Delta..... Idiots.

The gold standard for budgetary impacts is the non partisan Congressional Budget Office ( CBO )... Being the Gold Standard for projections is why the CBO was created!.... It projects Obamacare is going to save trillions...when compared to what we would pay WITHOUT OBAMACARE!!!!! which is the only meaningful metric...

This GAO report is more GOP dishonesty... Let's repeal Obama care not because of the future we face without Obama care.. But because it could cost more if everything goes wrong vs if everything with Obamacare goes absolutely perfectly? What government program, hell what human end-ever could possible stand up to those criteria?

Oh and for any of you folks bothering to do the math... We spend about 17.6 % of GDP on healthcare today. That's 3 trillion a year we spend on healthcare a year in 2013... increasing at two or three times the rate of inflation since the 1960's..... Healthcare costs are up from about 5% of GDP from the 1970's... Saying it's going to go up worse case an additional 0.7% of GDP over the next 75 YEARS is not saying much. Without Obamacare it wasn't uncommon for it to go up .7% in just a handful of years.

Edited February 27, 2013 by JMS

[DeaconTheVillain]

I'm gonna be brief in this thread....

I have traveled and lived overseas and their is more of a community sense over there. The attitude is pretty much "we will gladly take care of our own" and they can't understand the poverty in America while others live these amazingly lavish lifestyles.

I get both sides of the basic argument on health care, and its a complex issue. But, I think that the world in general (all of it) is moving towards this socialized medicine. There are a lot of poor people who maybe are born with conditions that really get screwed.

So why should my money that I work hard for help pay for the crack head who refuses to work hips replacement? Well, maybe because he is a person too and that a life of not working and being lazy, doing drugs, drinking, scamming welfare isn't much of a happy life... And people do change...It's not unheard of

I dunno I just speak from experience of living overseas. Everyone was cared for and I didn't get the impression that the care was that much worse than a private USA doc. The entire attitude was just different. Basically, it made me think how some people are really and truly born ****ed in this country of no fault of their own. While, in another country, they would at least have their health.

Edited February 27, 2013 by DeaconTheVillain

[LadySkinsFan]

It's called true compassion, not that "compassionate conservatism" trumped up by Bush/Rove. And the Tea Party Republicans are even worse, they don't care for human beings, just themselves.

[JMS]

It's called true compassion, not that "compassionate conservatism" trumped up by Bush/Rove. And the Tea Party Republicans are even worse, they don't care for human beings, just themselves.

No it's really much simpler than compassion. It's a question of stupidity... Americans pay very handsomely to deny people coverage.

You see based upon the costs per capita of every industrialized country in the world which enjoys universal coverage vs our system which leaves about 20% of our population (mostly our middle income) uninsured.... We spend more money than anybody else PER CAPITA . We spend almost 2-1 in order to leave folks without coverage!

If we adopted one of the European or Asian systems which cover everybody,, Including the French German or Italian systems which outperform our own system on services.. we would save almost half of our annual healthcare dollars while covering everybody.. That's about 1.5 Trillion dollars a year..... To put that into perspective sequestration is only going to save $81 billion this year or 810 billion over the next decade.....

---------- Post added February-27th-2013 at 01:28 PM ----------

So why should my money that I work hard for help pay for the crack head who refuses to work hips replacement? Well, maybe because he is a person too and that a life of not working and being lazy, doing drugs, drinking, scamming welfare isn't much of a happy life... And people do change...It's not unheard of

Only the crack head, welfare scammer has healthcare coverage... We cover the poor through medicaid. It's the working folks who earn too much money to be considered poor who are the bulk of the 50 million Americans who have no healthcare coverage.

Edited February 27, 2013 by JMS

[AsburySkinsFan]

No it's really much simpler than compassion. It's a question of stupidity... Americans pay very handsomely to deny people coverage.

You see based upon the results of every industrialized country in the world which enjoys universal coverage vs our system which leaves about 20% of our population (mostly our middle income) uninsured.... We spend more money than anybody else in order to cover fewer people PER CAPITA over our entire population....

If we adopted one of the European or Asian systems which cover everybody,, Including the French German or Italian systems which outperform our own system on services.. we would save almost about half of our healthcare dollars while covering everybody.. or save about 1.5 Trillion dollars a year collectively..... To put that into perspective sequestration is only going to save $81 billion this year or 810 billion over the next decade.....

But, universal healthcare in the US is not an issue of compassion or lack thereof, it is a completely financial issue and the issue is profits for the healthcare industry. The politicians have wrapped this all in language that sells, but that's just a smoke screen for the real motivations.

[JMS]

But, universal healthcare in the US is not an issue of compassion or lack thereof, it is a completely financial issue and the issue is profits for the healthcare industry. The politicians have wrapped this all in language that sells, but that's just a smoke screen for the real motivations.

I agree that Trillion plus concerns in our economy can afford a huge political umbrella. I still think it's stupidity which enables the policy to exist. The stupidity of the average American who will accept the burden they know rather than take any risk to improve it, no matter how overwhelming the arguments.

Edited February 27, 2013 by JMS

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree that Trillion plus concerns in our economy can afford a huge political umbrella. I still think it's stupidity which enables the policy to exist. The stupidity of the average American who will accept the burden they know rather than take any risk to improve it, no matter how overwhelming the arguments.

I agree it is fear, that and an large degree of arrogance predisposed to anything European. It is interesting that ad hominem arguments are so easily rejected when they leveled against individuals, but when they are used against nations, and some ideologies we reject them point blank purely based on the ad hominem, "That's European style" or "that's socialism" never mind the fact that it is an infinitely sustainable model than what we have now. It has been said before, but it bears repeating that too often the political interests have duped the people into voting against their self-interests.

Edited February 27, 2013 by AsburySkinsFan

[twa]

good news....smoking is a pre-existing condition

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345153/smoking-preexisting-condition-kevin-d-williamson

henceforth insurers shall be forbidden by law to charge smokers higher rates than non-smokers. Smoking, as it turns out, “is a preexisting medical condition,” according to Dr. Mohammad Akhter, the chairman of the D.C. Health Exchange Board.

next up

fertility treatment for same sex couples

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/gay-infertility-is-the-new-mandatory-health-insurance-frontier/

Under AB 640 which protects the right of anyone to infertility treatment regardless of ” gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information… sexual orientation”… Objectexualists have the same rights to infertility treatment with the statues, buildings and red fences of their choice.

And stop laughing. You’re a bigot. You’re an Objectosexualophobe.

this was cute

According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination” based on sexual orientation. Instead, they are denying infertility treatment benefits “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” AB 460 would amend the law to add the following language:

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”

[Predicto]

So according to the article in National Review... The Senate Staffers working for Republican Jefferson Sessions, came up with the 6.2 trillion number over 75 years, not the GAO. Session's staffers calculated that number based on what they think the GAO report says and attributed it to the GAO report... The number is nowhere in the actual GAO report.

I waited a month and a half to see if mikered30, btfoom, or nonniey would respond to this straightforward debunking. They clearly were invested in the thread and the subject matter, and then they just went silent.

It's kind of frustrating, knowing that the same behavior of 1) reposting something from the conservative alternative media, 2) believing in it wholly, 3) disappearing when it turns out to be exaggerated or false, and is going to be repeated in future threads, and is being repeated all over the Internet on all sorts of subjects.

---------- Post added April-10th-2013 at 11:13 AM ----------

good news....smoking is a pre-existing condition

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345153/smoking-preexisting-condition-kevin-d-williamson

henceforth insurers shall be forbidden by law to charge smokers higher rates than non-smokers. Smoking, as it turns out, “is a preexisting medical condition,” according to Dr. Mohammad Akhter, the chairman of the D.C. Health Exchange Board.

This may be accurate, or there might be more to the story. I did a google search and the first 100 hits were from right wing blogs and message boards repeating this blog post verbatim. I got tired of digging. I'm going to wait a few days and see if the story gets clarified or debunked. As this thread has proved, you can't trust a National Review blog story without letting the dust settle for a few days.

[Larry]

next up

fertility treatment for same sex couples

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/gay-infertility-is-the-new-mandatory-health-insurance-frontier/

Hmmm. Let's see.

Comes before the court, one twa. Bringing with him an article from FrontPage Mag. ("Insice every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to get Out"). Said article claims that a bill has been introduced (not passed) in California (not for the US) which simply states that insurance companies may not discriminate in their coverage.

The article leads off, before even telling us the subject of the article, by reminiscing about the last days of past civilizations.

twa chooses not to mention that this article is discussing a bill which has been proposed, but not even voted upon yet, and that it's state legislation, in California. And chooses to post this material in a thread entitled "Obamacare", without mentioning that it has absolutely nothing to do with that subject.

The article then goes on to pull (from the author's bodily orifices) the claims that fertility treatment is only intended for "natural couples", refers to same sex couples as "unnatural couples", that society has now determined that "gay marriage is a real thing, biology be dammed".

The article then goes on to declare:

Once we’ve determined that 70-year-olds and gay men are equally entitled to infertility treatments, not to mention people paralyzed from the waist down and 3-year-olds… it’s time to extend the civil right of a medical treatment meant to help biologically compatible couples to people trying to impregnate sheep and coffee tables.

If we’re going to treat biology like a bad joke, why stop at the human species line? Why stop at biology at all.

Object Sexuality is a condition in which people are attracted to and fall in love with objects. There is an Object Sexualist woman in the UK who is in a gay marriage with the Statue of Liberty.

BTW, the article's claim that "There is an Object Sexualist woman in the UK who is in a gay marriage with the Statue of Liberty"? Well, the article actually contains a link to an article, which says nothing of the sort. Gee, and I've always associated the trick of making a false claim, and providing a link to some other source which actually doesn't support the claim, and in fact disagrees with it, with only one person.

The author then declares that anybody who actually agrees with the things he's claiming will be called a bigot.

(I suspect he's correct, on that one.) :halo:

(Curiously, twa, who apparently does not think that the fact that this article has nothing to do with Obamacare is important enough to mention, does think that the author's (completely delusional) claim that this law will mandate fertility treatment for people who are unable to become pregnant through sex with inanimate objects, is worth quoting in his post.)

----------

I'm shocked. Slow day?

Edited April 10, 2013 by Larry

[Predicto]

Hmmm. Let's see.

Comes before the court, one twa. Bringing with him an article from FrontPage Mag. ("Insice every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to get Out"). Said article claims that a bill has been introduced (not passed) in California (not for the US) which simply states that insurance companies may not discriminate in their coverage.

The article leads off, before even telling us the subject of the article, by reminiscing about the last days of past civilizations.

twa chooses not to mention that this article is discussing a bill which has been proposed, but not even voted upon yet, and that it's state legislation, in California. And chooses to post this material in a thread entitled "Obamacare", without mentioning that it has absolutely nothing to do with that subject.

The article then goes on to pull (from the author's bodily orifices) the claims that fertility treatment is only intended for "natural couples", refers to same sex couples as "unnatural couples", that society has now determined that "gay marriage is a real thing, biology be dammed".

The article then goes on to declare:

BTW, the article's claim that "There is an Object Sexualist woman in the UK who is in a gay marriage with the Statue of Liberty"? Well, the article actually contains a link to an article, which says nothing of the sort. Gee, and I've always associated the trick of making a false claim, and providing a link to some other source which actually doesn't support the claim, and in fact disagrees with it, with only one person.

The author then declares that anybody who actually agrees with the things he's claiming will be called a bigot.

(I suspect he's correct, on that one.) :halo:

(Curiously, twa, who apparently does not think that the fact that this article has nothing to do with Obamacare is important enough to mention, does think that the author's (completely delusional) claim that this law will mandate fertility treatment for people who are unable to become pregnant through sex with inanimate objects, is worth quoting in his post.)

----------

I'm shocked. Slow day?

At least twa will come back to defend his claim, or at least try to change the subject. That's something.

[twa]

At least twa will come back to defend his claim, or at least try to change the subject. That's something.

You betcha

IF you cannot discriminate based on gender it is the natural result.

The NHS and others have already been down the path

you might find this of interest

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/02/16/fertility-treatment-is-irs-heteronormative-or-just-muddled/

[skinsmarydu]

I'm confooosed...what does the IRS have to do with the ACA again?

(You're up TSF, the article came from your land, lol!)

[Bliz]

good news....smoking is a pre-existing condition

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345153/smoking-preexisting-condition-kevin-d-williamson

henceforth insurers shall be forbidden by law to charge smokers higher rates than non-smokers. Smoking, as it turns out, “is a preexisting medical condition,” according to Dr. Mohammad Akhter, the chairman of the D.C. Health Exchange Board.

states rights. <shrug>

Interesting, I think, that only a state that chooses to set up and control its own program could make that decision to treat smokers and non-smokers the same for purposes of rates of their residents. The plans operated by the feds do "discriminate" against smokers.

And who says residents can't get the rules changed if they don't like them? I'm supposed to believe the governor and legislature are powerless to do anything about the decisions (or tenure) of the "czars"? BS.

<assuming the article is accurate. I adopt Predicto's "wait and see" approach>

Edited April 10, 2013 by Bliz

[Larry]

You betcha

IF you cannot discriminate based on gender it is the natural result.

No it isn't.

But feel free to keep trying to make the claim.

The NHS and others have already been down the path

you might find this of interest

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/02/16/fertility-treatment-is-irs-heteronormative-or-just-muddled/

Oh, look! A "some lawyer in a court case has tried to claim something" article.

Well, that surely must be because of Obamacare, right?

[twa]

No it isn't.

But feel free to keep trying to make the claim.

what was the result for the NHS?

what does ACA say about Gender Discrimination?

---------- Post added April-10th-2013 at 07:11 PM ----------

I'm confooosed...what does the IRS have to do with the ACA again?

they collect the fine, excuse me, tax, for it....among other things

but since you were likely asking how it relates to infertility treatments,a case like that can illustrate the equal under the law issue that arises if fertility treatments are not covered for gay couples.

but then ya get to whether it is essential, which HHS claims it is not....necessarily essential

but then it is deemed so by some states....which brings us back to unequal.

which they attempt to address by requiring state funding for those requiring it

will it work?

[Larry]

what was the result for the NHS?

You're the one who tried to make them the point (without actually making a point). How about you tell us?

what does ACA say about Gender Discrimination?

Don't know. But I suspect that it outlaws it.

But it's irrelevant. Your claim is that if gender discrimination is outlawed, then mandating that insurance companies must pay for people who want to impregnate sheep is "the natural result".

And whether the ACA allows gender discrimination or not, your claim is still utter BS.

but since you were likely asking how it relates to infertility treatments,a case like that can illustrate the equal under the law issue that arises if fertility treatments are not covered for gay couples.

Ah, moving the goalposts, I see. How traditional.

But, in this case, I agree with you. If the law (any law) forbids insurance companies to discriminate on gender, and if a company covers fertility treatments for infertile straight couples, then yeah, I could see the argument that they have to cover same-sex couples for the same treatment.

but then ya get to whether it is essential, which HHS claims it is not....necessarily essential

but then it is deemed so by some states....which brings us back to unequal.

which they attempt to address by requiring state funding for those requiring it

will it work?

Whether fertility treatment is essential is a question which doesn't care about the gender of the people involved. Despite your article's attempt to divide the world into straight couples and "unnatural couples".

[twa]

Sheep?.....why not pregnant pigs?

[skinsmarydu]

Just had to update why I love this program.

I just got back every dime of the two mammograms I had last year, minus my $25 co-pay. (I knew that the true cost was way above what I paid, and thought what I paid was reasonable, part of it is billed by radiology, but I got it all back.) That preventive-care clause was for real.

So gentlemen, please encourage your female significant others to git'r'done. It's not nearly as painful as I'd been told, and not nearly as costly, either.