|
On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
|
On January 26 2011 09:49 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 09:26 gerundium wrote:First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Then again, you have 20% of your population not insured AT ALL! Look it is true that public health care gets watered down to cut costs which brings its own problems, but you are missing a crucial point in this debate. The public health care system is there as a safety net. People who did not hit the social and economical lottery are still cared for in a system as this, which to me is good from a purely ethical point of view. That is not my main point here, the main point is that the systems are not mutually exclusive, the people who can afford it can still take private health care insurance, What is happening when you have only the private system in place is widespread uninsurance and potentially lower costs. I would choose the ethical option and go for the system that takes care of those in need. 20% of the population not being insured is an example of how expensive the insurance model and its moral hazards are. It does not follow that we should force 20% of the population who find it an unacceptable price to pay to buy that insurance. These 20% of the population have to be more careful on their health care and they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should. Lack of insurance is lack of access to the primary delivery model for health care. It is not a complete lack of access to health care. They can go see doctors and pay in cash for regular checkups. Some doctors prefer that since they don't have to deal with insurance agencies. Emergency care and many specialists, however, are all but out of the question for economical prices. If you want to be ethical, you could also improve the access of the uninsured to health care.
seriously they find it an unacceptable price to pay? Excuse me but with an unemployment rate of around 10% it is not a choice but an impossibility. The way the health care system is set up causes people to not be able to get the health care they need. In my opinion one of the governments main tasks should be to provide this neccesary care for the people. So people are forced to buy something, so what? you can always opt out for specific reasons. And don't come up with affording it because the government helps / pays if you are unable to.
"Opting out
Specific minority groups in Dutch society, most notably certain branches of orthodox Calvinism and Evangelical Christian groups, refuse to have insurance for religious reasons. To take care for these religious principled objections, the Dutch system provides a special opt-out clause. The amount of money for health care that would be paid by an employer in payroll taxes is in those cases not used for redistribution by the government, but instead, after request to the tax authorities, credited to a private health care savings account. The individual can draw from this account for paying medical bills, however if the account is depleted, one has to find the money elsewhere. If the person dies and the account still contains a sum, that sum is included in the inheritance.
If a person with a private health savings account changes his or her mind and wants to get insurance, the tax authorities release the remaining sum in the health account into the common risk pool.
The set of rules around the opt-out clauses have been designed in such way that people who do not want to be insured can opt-out but not engage in a free ride on the system. However, ultimately health care providers are obliged to provide acute health care irrespective of insurance or financial status." Source: wiki
And the rest of that post is just random things that are not relevant in the slightest.
they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should.
No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy.
They can go see doctors and pay in cash for regular checkups. Some doctors prefer that since they don't have to deal with insurance agencies.
Some doctors prefer cash because they do not have to deal with insurance agencies. well good for them i guess. They will adapt.
Emergency care and many specialists, however, are all but out of the question for economical prices.
So the care needed most is out of the question for these people. That sounds like a mighty fine plan.
|
And the rest of that post is just random things that are not relevant in the slightest. No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy.
Anyone who thinks moral hazard is "not relevant in the slightest" does not deserve to comment on the topic.
|
On January 26 2011 10:04 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 09:50 wherebugsgo wrote:
Lastly, I am not naive in believing that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens, because I don't believe that and I never said I did. I said that a government has a duty to serve its citizens. Private companies have no duties, they simply exist to churn out money.
If you've ever been in part of a big big company you would know that you have to at least satisfy your good customers. You'll try to weed out the bad and unruly customers. The good customers have to be satisfied to come back. That means insurance agencies can't appear openly unfair to some unlucky soul that happened to get sick under their coverage. These insurance agencies will try if nobody is watching, but people are. Most of the red tape, the hassle, the clinical paperwork, and the coding practices are to combat the moral hazard of having too high of a co-insurance rate. People with insurance consume a lot of health care because they don't see the full cost. Finally, good customers who either think the quality of insurance coverage is too poor, the hassle of insurance is too much, or the cost of insurance is too high go uninsured. That is the expression of how bad the economics of insurance has become.
I like how you chose to only reply to that part of my post.
First of all, you can believe that notion if you like, but the conclusions I made follow pretty logically. The statistics also speak for themselves.
Insurance companies frequently get sued in the U.S. because of how they often try to deny their patients coverage. Over the past decade, premiums have skyrocketed. Between 2001 and 2007 alone, for example, premiums went up 80%, vastly outpacing wage growth and inflation.
Lastly, the "good customers" for insurance companies are customers who never claim anything; they are the ones who never needed the insurance because they got lucky to never become sick or injured. What about this is hard to understand? Insurance companies DO reward their good customers, the demographics most likely to stay healthy, by giving them slight discounts. However, for everyone else, including those with preexisting conditions and those who have had a history of ailment, private insurance is complete trash.
Some people who support privatized insurance also claim that it's good for the economy, and that jobs will be lost if we add a public healthcare system, and we'll be wasting money that could be spent elsewhere. This is also unfounded and false. There's a phenomenon that happens here in the U.S. that really doesn't happen anywhere else, that reduces the flexibility of the job market because people are not willing to find different avenues of work for fear of losing their insurance. I believe this phenomenon is called "job-lock" (I could be wrong, or just remembering incorrectly) but it's a serious problem because of the strains it puts on the economy. Job turnover is stifled and people get pigeonholed in roles they aren't fit to serve because they're just too scared of becoming uninsured. In addition, companies must spend money on insurance plans (this is a big issue among the auto companies, especially) which makes competition with foreign businesses harder because of the increased burden.
|
On January 26 2011 10:19 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +And the rest of that post is just random things that are not relevant in the slightest. they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should. No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy. Anyone who thinks moral hazard is "not relevant in the slightest" does not deserve to comment on the topic.
my sarcastic tone is trying to convey the fact that was stated there is redundant, but i like your efforts. Anyway i am done here, i like these discussions but i just came in here to post something short and end up getting sucked into it. :-) Talk to me when you want to discuss dutch policy though, i am quite up for it.
|
I think this whole private/public distinction is quite meaningless. The U.S. is not a completely private system, with Medicare/Medicaid and all of the subsidies and restrictions surrounding health insurance. And none of the European or Asian systems are completely public, in fact, highly successful health care systems like the Netherlands' and Singapore's mostly use private insurance to finance their health care.
|
On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
|
On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
|
On January 26 2011 10:19 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +And the rest of that post is just random things that are not relevant in the slightest. they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should. No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy. Anyone who thinks moral hazard is "not relevant in the slightest" does not deserve to comment on the topic.
There are both good and bad sides of moral hazard.
The good side is that it increases the public health, which means more healthy tax payers and less ill people requiring social security.
The downside is that it costs money. Our government is trying to make people aware of this by a provision called "own risk" (literally translated). It means that you have to pay the first €175(per year) yourself (in 2011, in 2012 its €210)(The family doctor and some other things do not apply to this provision).
Also some unnecessary treatments dont get reimbursed unless you have additional insurance.
|
On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
The CBO is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring. Just because some of the media make it out to be some kind of omnipotent organization doesn't make them so. I suggest you fully read my post, I don't believe you did.
As for this surcharge, yes it is a lot of revenue. It also happens to be yet another tax increase on the top percentage of taxpayers. Why is this a good thing? The top percentage in this country pays all the taxes, while the bottom percentage pays almost no taxes and receives all the benefits. The wealthy already pay enough in this country without the destruction this bill is going to wreak on their income.
|
On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
Right. The CBO has been used to estimate budget projections since the 70s, and it seems NOW they have fault with it? It doesn't line up. It's as if, just because the ways to spend the money are easy to see but because the savings are more complicated, a lot of the Republicans are convinced that the bill doesn't save money.
Propaganda at its finest, of course.
The CBO is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring. Just because some of the media make it out to be some kind of omnipotent organization doesn't make them so. I suggest you fully read my post, I don't believe you did.
As for this surcharge, yes it is a lot of revenue. It also happens to be yet another tax increase on the top percentage of taxpayers. Why is this a good thing? The top percentage in this country pays all the taxes, while the bottom percentage pays almost no taxes and receives all the benefits. The wealthy already pay enough in this country without the destruction this bill is going to wreak on their income.
You went from lamenting that the CBO was manipulated to claiming that the CBO "is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring" and complaining about excessive taxes.
Make up your mind, or just admit you were wrong.
|
On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
|
On January 26 2011 11:04 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt. Right. The CBO has been used to estimate budget projections since the 70s, and it seems NOW they have fault with it? It doesn't line up. It's as if, just because the ways to spend the money are easy to see but because the savings are more complicated, a lot of the Republicans are convinced that the bill doesn't save money. Propaganda at its finest, of course. Show nested quote +The CBO is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring. Just because some of the media make it out to be some kind of omnipotent organization doesn't make them so. I suggest you fully read my post, I don't believe you did.
As for this surcharge, yes it is a lot of revenue. It also happens to be yet another tax increase on the top percentage of taxpayers. Why is this a good thing? The top percentage in this country pays all the taxes, while the bottom percentage pays almost no taxes and receives all the benefits. The wealthy already pay enough in this country without the destruction this bill is going to wreak on their income. You went from lamenting that the CBO was manipulated to claiming that the CBO "is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring" and complaining about excessive taxes. Make up your mind, or just admit you were wrong.
I'm not wrong. The CBO has to score what is in front of them. For instance, if you put a bill in front of them and ask them to score it, and then say to them "assume the economy booms in 2015" they have to score the bill with that in mind. In this case, they put the bill in front of them assuming they're going to make these cuts to Medicare and not pass the "Doc Fix". The CBO has to score the bill with that in mind.
Understand?
|
|
|
On January 26 2011 11:17 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt. You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work? The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010. As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
|
On January 26 2011 11:17 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt. You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work? The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
The "Doc fix" bill you speak of delayed the cuts to doctors. It was never intended for this pay cut to be used toward the healthcare bill. This is propaganda. It is not part of the budget projection. It is not part of the estimated costs or revenues that the CBO took into account when it released the figures. Get this through your head.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
What are you talking about? The bill changes medicare, it doesn't "fund itself" using medicare. For example, a $200 million cut in medicare spending is a $200 million cut to the deficit. You just seem to be going on about double counting because you erroneously suggest that the cost of the program is being "offset" by the $200 million cut. This isn't true: most of the offset comes from the increase in tax revenue, and the additional changes to the projected deficit come from the fact that medicare is being streamlined. How hard is this to understand?
Also, I like your use of incredulity and ridicule to further your "point." You claim that he can't "seriously claim" that it isn't double counting, and implicate that the fact that Medicare is inefficient, or as you put it, "bleeding money right now" somehow means it's double counting.
I'm not wrong. The CBO has to score what is in front of them. For instance, if you put a bill in front of them and ask them to score it, and then say to them "assume the economy booms in 2015" they have to score the bill with that in mind. In this case, they put the bill in front of them assuming they're going to make these cuts to Medicare and not pass the "Doc Fix". The CBO has to score the bill with that in mind.
Understand?
This is not what the CBO does. This is what Republican propaganda has insisted that the CBO does, even though it conveniently uses the CBO's estimates to back up its own plans when it conveniences the party's agenda. For example, when the CBO estimated that Obama's stimulus package would boost the economy in the short term but potentially hurt the economy in the long term, Republicans were in uproar. Yet now, they're quick to claim that the CBO is some kind of five year old that is trained to only add and subtract numbers.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/what_does_the_congressional_bu.html
It's no secret that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is extremely inefficient. This bill reduces some of these inefficiencies, which is why the budget deficit is actually reduced even though an entitlement program is introduced. It's not intuitive, but it is logical.
|
On January 26 2011 11:37 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 11:17 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt. You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work? The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010. As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years. You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even. Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for". You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face. Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
|
On January 26 2011 11:45 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 11:17 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt. You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work? The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010. The "Doc fix" bill you speak of delayed the cuts to doctors. It was never intended for this pay cut to be used toward the healthcare bill. This is propaganda. It is not part of the budget projection. It is not part of the estimated costs or revenues that the CBO took into account when it released the figures. Get this through your head. Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years. What are you talking about? The bill changes medicare, it doesn't "fund itself" using medicare. For example, a $200 million cut in medicare spending is a $200 million cut to the deficit. You just seem to be going on about double counting because you erroneously suggest that the cost of the program is being "offset" by the $200 million cut. This isn't true: most of the offset comes from the increase in tax revenue, and the additional changes to the projected deficit come from the fact that medicare is being streamlined. How hard is this to understand? Also, I like your use of incredulity and ridicule to further your "point." You claim that he can't "seriously claim" that it isn't double counting, and implicate that the fact that Medicare is inefficient, or as you put it, "bleeding money right now" somehow means it's double counting. Show nested quote +I'm not wrong. The CBO has to score what is in front of them. For instance, if you put a bill in front of them and ask them to score it, and then say to them "assume the economy booms in 2015" they have to score the bill with that in mind. In this case, they put the bill in front of them assuming they're going to make these cuts to Medicare and not pass the "Doc Fix". The CBO has to score the bill with that in mind.
Understand? This is not what the CBO does. This is what Republican propaganda has insisted that the CBO does, even though it conveniently uses the CBO's estimates to back up its own plans when it conveniences the party's agenda. For example, when the CBO estimated that Obama's stimulus package would boost the economy in the short term but potentially hurt the economy in the long term, Republicans were in uproar. Yet now, they're quick to claim that the CBO is some kind of five year old that is trained to only add and subtract numbers. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/what_does_the_congressional_bu.htmlIt's no secret that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is extremely inefficient. This bill reduces some of these inefficiencies, which is why the budget deficit is actually reduced even though an entitlement program is introduced. It's not intuitive, but it is logical.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/22/politics/main5180278.shtml
On the doc fix.
You aren't reading my posts. If you want to have a debate, we can have a debate, but I'm not going to keep posting if you don't read my posts. I didn't claim that just because Medicare was bleeding money it was double counting. That is way oversimplifying my point. Medicare has a huge unfunded liability, the cuts in Medicare are supposedly being used to shore up Medicare's solvency and pay for future Medicare spending. Somehow, this money is also being used to pay for the health-care bill. Please explain how this is not double-counting.
Please don't call me a Republican propagandist, this does not further the debate. This is what CBO does. Please read the article I posted by Holtz-Eakin, he was a former CBO director. He is also an extremely smart man.
|
On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 11:37 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:17 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 26 2011 10:07 RJGooner wrote:On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote:On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote:
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation. Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term. I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill. The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples: 398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill. 70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted. The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix. See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated. This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over. I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter: "To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade." Important parts are bolded. A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting. I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit. Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!" Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt. You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work? The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010. As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years. You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even. Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for". You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face. Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new. You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice. Let me try to lay it out here. Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities. This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting. I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
You are massively conflating something a Democratic politician said (which was wrong, that is, it both makes medicare solvent and pays for reform) with what the CBO counted.
Paul Ryan admitted there was no double counting in the CBO's report:
"But what I want to make sure is clarified here is that the numbers people are using from CBO are not afflicted by that rhetorical overreach. When CBO says the bill will save this much money, it really will, at least according to the best estimates.
REP. RYAN: I'm not disagreeing with that. But I think CBO is omitting other fiscal effects that are not in the bill -- unless we plan on cutting doctors 21 percent next month. Unless we plan on doing that, then we're not truly capturing the fiscal effects. [Washington Post, 3/4/10, emphasis added]"
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101190005
|
It was a campaign promise. As stupid as it may seem, at least they are following up on their campaign promises lol. I hate it when the people don't follow up even though they promise. They do it only for votes. And even if this is stupid politics, at least they have the balls to follow up on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
