|
On January 26 2011 12:17 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote: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.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
|
On January 26 2011 12:27 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 12:17 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote: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. The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill.
Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here.
Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
|
Checks and balances at work. It was pretty active in half the clinton years too. I haven't heard it thanks for the post, this is the only place I get my news :/. Has anyone read the proposal? I would cry/laugh if it included more spending in a repeal.
|
On January 26 2011 12:32 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 12:27 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 12:17 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms. The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill. Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here. Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut.
This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
|
On January 26 2011 12:46 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 12:32 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 12:27 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 12:17 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms. The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill. Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here. Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid... Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut. This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
Yes, exactly. So why are you claiming the Doc FIx is part of this bill? It is an irrelevant point, the Doc Fix will happen with or without the bill and thus cannot be considered an expense of the bill.
It is a matter of you being wrong, not a different viewpoint.
You probably got this from Paul Ryan, who, as I posted, admitted the CBO didn't double-count and he is using rhetorical tricks regarding double counting and a non-sequitur when it comes to the Doc Fix.
Here is the report itself, if you have never read it: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf
Here is Factcheck.org's analysis, which upholds the CBO's report as being the most accurate available: http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
|
On January 26 2011 12:46 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 12:32 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 12:27 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 12:17 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms. The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill. Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here. Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid... Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut. This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
EXACTLY.
You said it yourself. This has been happening for a long time. It is NOT double counting BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL.
At this point you've resorted to pitying yourself and claiming we're not reading your posts. We are, you're just being completely illogical. The Doc fix bill is separate from the healthcare bill and therefore is not part of the healthcare reform budget calculations.
Since this has been happening since 1997, the net result is that the Doc fix legislation has no foreseeable change to the budget. The Republicans wanted to axe it because they wanted to cut medicare spending by $200 billion. For the 13th year in a row, they failed, so now they've turned it into part of the healthcare bill with their propaganda arm, when it has been a separate issue for more than a decade.
Get your facts straight.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 10:13 gerundium wrote:
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.
Given a choice to live in a place with enough privacy or put food on the table OR buy health insurance, these people choose privacy and food. Health insurance is not a priority because it's damn expensive. Yes it's a hard choice to make, but that's the priority of these people. It SUCKS being forced to buy something that is ridiculously expensive when your priorities are somewhere else.
This is the individual mandate. Forcing 50 million people to buy insurance at a conservative cost of $3000 per individual per year is $150 billion dollars per year. That's a huge amount of money to shove into the health insurance industry. It dwarfs any kind of fiscal "savings" of the new bill.
No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
That's their current predicament precisely because THE GOVERNMENT makes it so damn hard to get by without insurance. All of the tax incentives and regulations make it IMPOSSIBLE to get that service without insurance company connections. It's is an artificial construct thanks to regulations.
It takes balls to tell these people that are struggling to get by and doctors that are sick and tired of coding practices and insurance company bureaucracy that you are going to fuck their life by giving them no choice in buying insurance and accepting insurance. Because fuck these little people, right?
BTW, the carefulness is precisely an expression of total lack of moral hazard in the uninsured arena. The reason they value their health so much is because they know if they mess up, they would be screwed. If only the rest of the population were so careful and frugal because total health care expenditures would plummet.
|
The United States has the most deregulated health care system among first world nations. Every other first world nation has a health care system around 40% more efficient than that of the United States for cost.
...So your solution is to continue US health care deregulation.
I'd suggest reading Akerlof's Market for Lemons. It's not a difficult read, he won a Nobel Prize for it, and it's fairly informative as to why health care is so terrible in the United States.
Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1879431
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The US health care system is a heavily regulated market with private actors operating on profit motive. There is thousands and thousands of pages of regulation at the state and federal level. Such a system pretty much borrows the worst of public and private systems. It has the inefficiency and moral hazard of public systems. It has the profiteering and pressure advertising of private systems.
The individual mandate is yet another step towards an unholy public-private disaster - a disaster that is already playing out in Massachusetts. There will be little savings in premiums. The cost of funding the insurance subsidies will wildly exceed initial estimates. People will hate the system in a few years.
I've been on record here as advocating going fully private with little regulation or fully public with total socialism. I believe will regret getting stuck in this limbo of individual mandate. There is some parallels with Switzerland system but theirs is expensive, and in line with the $3000 per individual per year. The advantage of Swiss is that they only have 8 million in population. That will be much easier to administrate, manage moral hazard, and counter act fraud than in a system that oversees 300 million.
I've read Market For Lemons. It makes the fundamental assumption that consumers are dumb and that "some smart technocrat" has to coddle these dumb consumers. Consumers can't seem to learn that they need to do their due diligence when buying cars or recognize that quality is not uniform over all goods. That's going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy if you coddle them.
|
On January 26 2011 13:20 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 12:46 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 12:32 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 12:27 RJGooner wrote:On January 26 2011 12:17 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 11:57 RJGooner wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms. The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill. Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here. Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid... Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut. This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine. EXACTLY. You said it yourself. This has been happening for a long time. It is NOT double counting BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL.At this point you've resorted to pitying yourself and claiming we're not reading your posts. We are, you're just being completely illogical. The Doc fix bill is separate from the healthcare bill and therefore is not part of the healthcare reform budget calculations.Since this has been happening since 1997, the net result is that the Doc fix legislation has no foreseeable change to the budget. The Republicans wanted to axe it because they wanted to cut medicare spending by $200 billion. For the 13th year in a row, they failed, so now they've turned it into part of the healthcare bill with their propaganda arm, when it has been a separate issue for more than a decade. Get your facts straight.
There is a doc fix in this bill that DOES cut payments to Medicare doctors, providers and physicians starting six years from now. The problem is that this will be repealed (like they do every year) and that "savings" will not be realized.
Here's another good article if you want to read it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089702354292100.html
A good article by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin explaining the gimmicks in this bill.
|
On January 26 2011 16:18 TanGeng wrote:
I've read Market For Lemons. It makes the fundamental assumption that consumers are dumb and that "some smart technocrat" has to coddle these dumb consumers. Consumers can't seem to learn that they need to do their due diligence when buying cars or recognize that quality is not uniform over all goods. That's going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy if you coddle them.
I'm fairly certain you're trolling.
|
I'm glad you guys are still arguing about a bill that has not passed and arguably won't for a long time.
The repeal the house passed specifically nullifies stuff like "insurance companies cannot drop those with pre-existing conditions."
I've updated the op because Obama talked about this specifically in the State of the Union.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
ACA does have the sustainable growth rate (SGR) provision of the Balance Budge Act of 1997. SGR is the provision that keeps getting the "doc fix" every time it is about to come into affect. It is projected to be one huge saving for Medicare this decade and huge savings in future decades.
ACA has the IPAB, a different cost controlling measuring. Not the "doc fix" issue. Same sort of logic applies.
Now the savings is only on paper. To realize those savings, Congress would have to have the will power to see it through, will power that Congress has yet to demonstrate. Thus Medicare becomes more and more insolvent. That said if Congress does see it through, we might see the end of Medicare as we know it in a decade or so. No doctors will want to accept Medicare patients then and Congress will effectively kill that entitlement.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 16:41 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 16:18 TanGeng wrote:
I've read Market For Lemons. It makes the fundamental assumption that consumers are dumb and that "some smart technocrat" has to coddle these dumb consumers. Consumers can't seem to learn that they need to do their due diligence when buying cars or recognize that quality is not uniform over all goods. That's going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy if you coddle them. I'm fairly certain you're trolling.
Look, it's all about asymmetrical information and how buyers can't POSSIBLY determine the quality which the seller knows. Buyers would be screaming for services to level the playing field. Recent innovation in quality tracking of cars for example would suggest that the playing field does get leveled.
The "lemon" market is contingent on several other factors like lack of reputation tracking, lack of enforceable warranty, and lack of quality control. These all don't exist any more for sizeable purchases like use cars. In fact part of the driving force behind closing the asymmetrical information has been sellers of high quality used cars. They want to be able to differentiate themselves from the lemon dealers.
The only other explanation is that all consumers are dumb and won't do their due diligence. Hence the coddling. In fact, this is part of the book. These buyers need regulators or they won't see the warning signs!
|
On January 26 2011 16:52 TanGeng wrote:
Look, it's all about asymmetrical information and how buyers can't POSSIBLY determine the quality which the seller knows. Buyers would be screaming for services to level the playing field. Recent innovation in quality tracking of cars for example would suggest that the playing field does get leveled.
The "lemon" market is contingent on several other factors like lack of reputation tracking, lack of enforceable warranty, and lack of quality control. These all don't exist any more for sizeable purchases like use cars. In fact part of the driving force behind closing the asymmetrical information has been sellers of high quality used cars. They want to be able to differentiate themselves from the lemon dealers.
The only other explanation is that all consumers are dumb and won't do their due diligence. Hence the coddling. In fact, this is part of the book. These buyers need regulators or they won't see the warning signs!
That's why healthcare insurance costs so much over here*. As Akerlof notes, sellers in markets with asymmetric information use brands, screening, and underwriting to maximize profit.
But you know what else that does? It imparts huge administrative costs to private healthcare suppliers, which are then passed onto the buyer; price discrimination only works efficiently if the cost is negligible to the producer. And larger administrative duties makes comparing healthcare providers even more challenging, which increases asymmetric information.
This is, of course, assuming that private healthcare suppliers can accurately predict prices for the majority of high-cost persons, with screening. Or that public health care doesn't exist in the US in the form of emergency rooms. Or that the average person is worth 0 dollars to the overall economy over the course of a lifetime. Or that insurers have a reason to aggressively pay for preventative care.** None of these are true. Which increases costs even further.
*Ok, I'm slightly exaggerating. We're less healthy than Europeans and Japan. But the bulk of the money is in administration.
**It's complicated, but the average person switches health insurance providers fast enough that insurance companies have a significantly decreased incentive to pay for increased costs that will happen to another insurance company.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 17:08 acker wrote:
That's why healthcare insurance costs so much over here*. As Akerlof notes, sellers in markets with asymmetric information use brands, screening, and underwriting to maximize profit.
Many states have group rates or community rates where it is illegal to offer different insurance premium rates regardless of sex, age, or lifestyle. This is not a case of inaccessible asymmetrical information. Health insurance companies have their hands tied on using information that is readily apparent. Uniform pricing and self-selection means that the older, sicklier, and more risk adverse segment of the population are more likely to buy insurance, while the younger, healthier and more risk tolerant are less likely. This skew towards sicklier population drive premium higher prompting more healthier, younger, and risk tolerant individuals to abandon insurance.
Risks are not reflected in premiums. You know what that is? A moral hazard. Administrative red tape is to combat the moral hazards in the system. There are numerous examples of these in the US system.
You know why it's such a pain in the ass? Because it is illegal to combat this moral hazards by making people pay directly in monetary form, so instead, the insurance companies make people pay by wasting everybody's time.
Japan and Europe have their own flavor of problems. Health care systems are a mess all around the world.
|
On January 26 2011 16:42 TanGeng wrote:
ACA does have the sustainable growth rate (SGR) provision of the Balance Budge Act of 1997. SGR is the provision that keeps getting the "doc fix" every time it is about to come into affect. It is projected to be one huge saving for Medicare this decade and huge savings in future decades.
ACA has the IPAB, a different cost controlling measuring. Not the "doc fix" issue. Same sort of logic applies.
Now the savings is only on paper. To realize those savings, Congress would have to have the will power to see it through, will power that Congress has yet to demonstrate. Thus Medicare becomes more and more insolvent. That said if Congress does see it through, we might see the end of Medicare as we know it in a decade or so. No doctors will want to accept Medicare patients then and Congress will effectively kill that entitlement.
Well said. I was wrong in saying that it was specifically the "doc fix" but it is the same sort of idea.
|
On January 25 2011 17:49 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 17:44 Tianx wrote:
I'm so glad that the House voted to give themselves a salary increase for the third term in a row, they clearly deserve it.
/facepalms Meanwhile Federal civilians get no increase for two years, veterans get no increase for three years, and active duty military get the lowest pay-raise since 1962.
and 9/11 relieve worker who became sick for inhailing to many dust during evacuation process dont get their medical benefit for you know... helping people
|
I honestly don't see why Americans are so stubborn... Free healthcare is something that should be in place no matter the cost and as soon as it is everyone is screaming life is over.. seriously get ur shit together your making canada look bad by being ontop of you.
|
On January 26 2011 17:46 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 17:08 acker wrote:
That's why healthcare insurance costs so much over here*. As Akerlof notes, sellers in markets with asymmetric information use brands, screening, and underwriting to maximize profit.
Many states have group rates or community rates where it is illegal to offer different insurance premium rates regardless of sex, age, or lifestyle. This is not a case of inaccessible asymmetrical information. Health insurance companies have their hands tied on using information that is readily apparent. Uniform pricing and self-selection means that the older, sicklier, and more risk adverse segment of the population are more likely to buy insurance, while the younger, healthier and more risk tolerant are less likely. This skew towards sicklier population drive premium higher prompting more healthier, younger, and risk tolerant individuals to abandon insurance. Risks are not reflected in premiums. You know what that is? A moral hazard. Administrative red tape is to combat the moral hazards in the system. There are numerous examples of these in the US system. You know why it's such a pain in the ass? Because it is illegal to combat this moral hazards by making people pay directly in monetary form, so instead, the insurance companies make people pay by wasting everybody's time. Japan and Europe have their own flavor of problems. Health care systems are a mess all around the world.
Oh god, the talking points. Ever notice how the states with the least regulation tend to do the worst for private healthcare? Or that the most-regulated states achieve near-European levels of coverage?
Or how the most deregulated health insurance countries do worse compared to government-run health-insurance countries?
Or even look at government vs. private healthcare providers. The VA is underfunded, but it's far more efficient than almost any private healthcare provider, and they deal with soldiers, not civilians. Or Medicare.
Look, I'm sure that somewhere in a Galtian paradise there exists a system where a completely-deregulated health care provider will....actually, I can't even say that, unregulated health insurance fails economic logic that hard. Until health providers start gathering Facebook data or something where people post their entire life stories.
What I don't understand is how the rest of the civilized world can get this but America...can't.
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
