It will be very interesting to hear Obama wiggle away from the facially-ridiculous positions he and Pelosi/Waxman have taken--a few of which are listed below. (More at the link.)
1. Cutting $500 billion from Medicare will not hurt care or cut benefits for seniors.
2. Spending $1 Trillion will save money.
3. Spending $1 Trillion will not increase the deficit.
4. If you like your plan you can keep it, except in five years every insurance plan design for everyone will be dictated by the federal government design requirements.
5. You can buy any insurance plan from any insurer you want. But you can only buy the government designed, government approved plans — its like saying you can buy the same house from any builder, but the builders all have the same set of plans and can only sell that house.
[Both of the above are variants on Henry Ford's "any color so long as it's black" catalog of offerings.]
6. This is not a government take-over of the health care sector.
7. There will not be any rationing.
Maybe he'll use Option Babble.
You've got a number of things wrong here (including trying to claim that HR3200 adds $1t to the deficit), but this one:
ReplyDeleteits like saying you can buy the same house from any builder, but the builders all have the same set of plans and can only sell that house.
is flat wrong.
HR3200 establishes that there will be minimum benefit levels set. Insurance companies are free to offer anything they would like over an above that.
So, really, it's more like you can buy a house from any builder, but the builders all have to meet the same building codes like including safe wiring and at least one bathroom.
But, hey, stay ignorant of the facts. Why start telling the truth now?
Sorry, Jay, but that's not correct (as usual.)
ReplyDeleteThe entire debate IS about "what is minimum." I don't expect you to know about building code manipulation, but if you wish to be educated, you should look it up someday.
But thanks for your comparison. It is very apt.
Uhhh Jay, the CBO said 1.2 Trillion.
ReplyDeleteUhhh Jay, the CBO said 1.2 Trillion.
ReplyDeleteWhich is its cost. But it said, after ten years, it would add a grand total of $65b to the debt.
And, dad, are you really suggesting that no insurance company anywhere in the nation will offer something above the minimums? Why does that even make sense?
We've been through this, Jay
ReplyDeleteCBO's new "deficit" figure is ONLY good IF Congress utilizes PayGo rules.
Tax increase or rationing. Take your pick, OR it's a $1Tn hole in the deficit.
Actually, Jay, I'm suggesting that ObamaCare will have FAR more in mandates than any plan currently known in this country.
CBO's new "deficit" figure is ONLY good IF Congress utilizes PayGo rules.
ReplyDeleteNo, the CBO figure is based on what's in the bill, with the additional caveat the the $65b deficit can be overcome by PAYGO.
Tax increase or rationing. Take your pick.
Which I think proves you haven't read the bill and don't know what you're talking about.
Actually, Jay, I'm suggesting that ObamaCare will have FAR more in mandates than any plan currently known in this country.
You can suggest that, and others can suggest that there will be fewer mandates. And if this passes and a Republican president gets to appoint the panel, hell, there could be no mandates.
But even so, your argument is logically just, well, dumb. On the one hand, you argue that coverage will suck because the only insurance out there will be "black," to use Ford; on the other, you argue that the minimum coverage will actually be very broad.
So which is it--will coverage be so minimal as to be worthless or so expansive as to be comprehensive? You can't have it both ways.
You must spend all day working on Obtusity 400-level courses.
ReplyDeleteSo which is it--will coverage be so minimal as to be worthless or so expansive as to be comprehensive? You can't have it both ways.
I never suggested the former. Put down your wackytobaccy before writing.
As to CBO vs. reality, here's Part One:
Earlier this year, The Lewin Group released a study showing that under the July 15th draft of Obamacare, enrollment in the public option would reach 103.4 million people including about 83.4 million people who would lose their private insurance and be nudged onto the public plan. But also in July, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) then released their own analysis showing that only 11 million people would enroll in the public plan.
How can these numbers be off by a factor of ten? The answer demonstrates just how dangerous the creation of any public plan really is, no matter how small it is initially.
Explaining the gap between the CBO and their own numbers, the Lewin Group’s John Sheils and Randy Haught write: “There are two reasons for the difference in the CBO and Lewin Group estimates for the July 15th draft. The first stems from the fact that the bill does not specify which size companies ultimately would be allowed to enter the exchange and thus the public plan. The bill requires that the exchange be open to individuals and small firms with less than 20 workers by the second year of the program and gives a newly established “Commissioner” the authority to extend eligibility to all employers in subsequent years. … The second area of difference is over premium levels in the public plan.”
Sheils and Haught then detail how by fiddling with eligibility and premium level assumptions (details that under any public plan will be imminently changeable by Congress and the new healthcare “Commissioner”), the CBO and Lewin numbers largely match up.
IOW, after CBO's Director was called on the carpet by ObamaKing, his numbers reflected what can charitably be called "a conservative estimate" of the impact of HR 3200.
http://foundry.heritage.org/2009/09/01/morning-bell-the-road-to-government-run-health-care/
If the "reality" portion of your "CBO v reality" fight is the Lewin Group--a wholly owned and funded subsidiary of UnitedHealth--then I defer to the CBO.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the number of people on the public option doesn't change the cost; the public option, as HR3200 is written, is paid for entirely by premiums, not by taxes. But, then again, you seem not to know lots of things about what's in the bill--like the way you demonstrated a thorough ignorance of the bill's built-in funding mechanism--so I'm not surprised.
Further, the more people on the public option, the greater the savings in medical spending overall, and the faster real wages start rising again, according to the CBO (pdf).
Finally, if you do think that the minimum standard for private plans would be comprehensive, then what's the problem?
Gee. You'll take the CBO which changes its numbers after a little woodshed session with ObamaKing.
ReplyDeleteBe still, my heart!
as HR3200 is written, is paid for entirely by premiums, not by taxes
Wrong. If THAT were true, there would be no "tax credits" required. But the plan provides for "tax credits" for families earning up to $150K++.
"Tax Credits" = deficits, unless there is an offsetting spend reduction.
Oh yah, I forgot: the reduction is in Medicare spending! Did I mention Rationing?
And anyone who believes that more participants in a plan which loses money on every participant (tax credits) actually SAVES MONEY is simply beyond assistance.
And, by the way, is that not a "mandate"? And did O-Savior campaign against "mandates," Jay?
The Bill can say anything it likes. Reality--the effects--will be different than the projections.
Post Office. Amtrak. Fannie. Freddie. FHA. Medicare. Medicaid.
Dream on, Jay.
Dad, you're confusing two completely separate parts of the bill, and by eliding my quote, you make it sound like I'm the confused one, not you.
ReplyDeleteThere are subsidies, yes. But those subsidies exist separate from the public option insurance plan.
And there is a public option insurance plan, yes. But that plan exists separate from the subsidies available to low-income individuals.
The government does not "lose money" on every participant in the public option, because the subsidy is not tied selection of that plan. People who get the breaks are welcome to buy the public plan, or they may just as easily take that money to buy one of the available private plans. It is possible, though I admit not likely, that no one who receives a subsidy opts for the public plan.
When you read the bill (try page 119), it makes it clear that the public option insurance plan must be financed fully and only by member premiums. Funding of the public option has nothing to do with tax credits.
Anyone who believes ANYTHING that the CBO or any government office says is just plain stupid. Period. Quit drinking the effin kool aid and come to reality. The middle class will, once again, bear the burden of the taxes necessary to pay for Obamacare. IOW, to pay, once again, for those who don't care to work for themselves to provide themselves a better lifestyle. Or, to pay for those who continue to scam the system. Kinda like that babe in Milwaukee who moved up to the "east side" on the back of tax payers subsidizing child care. Sound familiar? Jay, if you want government supplied health care, pack your shit and move to Canada or England already. Lemme know how that works for you when you need medical care. Idiot.
ReplyDeleteLet us also not forget that juicy little morsel that revenues start kicking in 2 years before the outlays start - which aren't until 4-5 years from passage of the bill - and there is still a deficit. I'd like to see a financial analysis of 10 years in the "steady state".
ReplyDeleteWhy the hell should the government decide what the minimum level of coverage I need to have is?
ReplyDeleteIs it the assumption from everyone on the left that not one of us is intelligent enough to make ANY of these decisions for ourselves?