CBO scores the Senate Health Bill

[keepthefaith]

Wow... Somebody is full of themselves and takes themselves & what they do way too seriously.

 

You have the classes ass backwards. It is the other way around. They want free coverage for the productive class (the poor sleps actually doing 90% of the work) at the expense of the unproductive class(the rich sleps that do nothing but tell the poor slep what should be done).

 

Is that so bad. Seems pretty honorable to me. Give the people something that they actually WORK for.

 

 

 

Don't worry, there will be a revolution and you will get schooled on the proper usuage...J/K (not about the above though)...

 

You can't actually believe what you wrote here, can you? You really think the rich are unproductive? How did they get rich? The poor are productive? How then do they stay poor?

[Magox]

You can't actually believe what you wrote here, can you? You really think the rich are unproductive? How did they get rich? The poor are productive? How then do they stay poor?

He does, as evidenced through his body of work over the years here at PPP.

[keepthefaith]

He does, as evidenced through his body of work over the years here at PPP.

 

OK, but I look forward to his reply. Should be a beauty.

[Magox]

Obama's new health plan.

 

 

Obama would also make significant changes to an agreement reached last month with labor unions over the excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans. Under that agreement, the tax would be delayed for union-negotiated health plans until 2018 while kicking in more quickly for other Americans.

 

In a tacit acknowledgement that the labor agreement could be viewed as another backroom deal, Obama would delay the tax for all plans until 2018, and further raise the threshold at which the tax would kick in to $27,500 for an annual family plan, up from $24,500.

 

 

Other provisions would also please liberals, including a boost in tax subsidies for low- and moderate-income individuals to purchase insurance and bigger penalties on larger employers that do not provide health insurance.

 

So, the plan is to expand the size of subsidies, which of course increases the size of yet another entitlement program and increases the mandates for companies to provide insurance to their employees in an already weak economy.

 

 

Obama’s plan would fully close the “donut hole” for Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries by 2020, going further than the Senate bill, which would have narrowed it to only 50 percent.

 

Yet another increase in the size of this entitlement program.

 

The bill also gives the federal government sweeping new powers to curb exorbitant rate hikes by the nation’s health insurance companies, a White House official said Sunday night – a proposal designed to win over skeptical voters as Obama announces his own health insurance legislation for the first time Monday.

 

Obama’s proposal would give the Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, new powers to review premium hikes by private insurance companies – and in some cases, block those deemed excessive. Anthem’s rate hikes of up to 39 percent in recent weeks have focused attention on the skyrocketing health insurance costs, the very costs Obama vowed to fight when he undertook comprehensive health care reform last year.

 

Obama’s plan would create a new board made up health insurance experts, which would determine annually what are reasonable premium hikes in various markets, and the HHS secretary also would work with state officials, the White House said.

 

This sounds good in theory, and is sure to win public support, but the reality is that it won't change a damn thing when it comes to pricing. People were outraged of the new increases in premiums by Blue Cross in California last week. It did seem odd that they would be doing this, specially at this time when the Health Reform meeting was to take place. However, I read a few pieces on it, and it made sense why the increases had to take place.

 

In short, many people in California had to drop their insurance because of the tough economy. So what happened was that alot of healthy people dropped out of the risk pool, which of course would lead to higher premiums.

 

 

 

In regards to this bill that the W.H is proposing it reminds me of what is happening today in Greece. Right now, Greece is paralyzed. The president has to cut spending or else they won't get the backing of the E.U. So what he is proposing is to freeze spending on wages, and offer their version of S.S to their constituents to people at the age of 63 as opposed to 61, which is where the threshold lies today. Greece is a country that is froth with entitlement programs, the workforce in Greece is controlled by government and Union workers, and these are the main people that are opposed to these cuts.

 

What this shows is that once people enter these entitlement programs, then it is almost impossible to undo or cut them.

 

If anything, we should be talking about how to cut Medicare and S.S, but instead of doing that, we are not only adding a new huge entitlement program, but the president is looking to expand the Senate proposal.

 

Edit: Just got done reading this article, and it somewhat supports my point about Greece and entitlement programs.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

[IDBillzFan]

Edit: Just got done reading this article, and it somewhat supports my point about Greece and entitlement programs.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

What I find interesting at first blush is that Obama has basically taken everything that could possibly cause a battle, and stripped it out of both bills, and put together a particularly bland proposal. It's a little like sitting down with a caterer to plan a wedding reception, looking at the menu and saying "Well, can't have fish because of Uncle Joe. And we can't have beef because of Aunt Suzie. And we can't have corn because of Cousin Bettie." And having the caterer say "Okay, so we've narrowed the menu down to water, unsalted Saltines and a Ho-Ho." In other words, what started out as a plan has turned into a compromise that doesn't seem to do anything that was supposed to be part of the plan.

 

What it seems to do is simply squeeze the insurance providers out of the market over a period of time, give subsidized benefits to the poor, and tax the living crap out of small businesses and the over $250K crowd to pay for it.

 

The one thing the article does point out is the cleverness of the WH to stage a meeting for Thursday to discuss health care reform , put this plan out on Monday, and then say to the GOP "Ummm, we brought our plan, where is yours?" Pretty smart way to make the GOP look stupid, but in the process, I don't see anyone listening to the majority of Americans in terms of what they want. Just idiots jockeying to not look bad on Thursday.

 

I have no basis to say this, but I fear Thursday is going to make our country look really, really stupid on a worldwide scale. I'm not sure why. It's that feeling you get when you know your co-workers are about to meet your weird Uncle Mortimer.

[Adam]

If they would drop the enormity of the subsidized health care and the public option, and focus on cost containment and some of the perceived health insurance abuses such as dropping coverage with those with pre existing coverage, then there would undoubtedly be a bill that could pass. But the Libs don't want to drop "comprehensive" health care, which is code word for subsidized care for millions of Americans. Which we can't afford, look where two out of the three main deficit problems come from, medicare and S.S and now we want to add another humongous entitlement program, financed through massive taxes and mandates from small businesses on an already weak economy.

 

Idealogues that lack good judgement are running this country.

It has been that way for a long time now as far as running the country and seems to get worse each year- which may not be the fault of who sits in the president's office each year, but the fault of the American people for not insisting on restraint.

 

Personally, I think we would be in better shape if we had been able to get rid of social security and medicare, but had public health insurance- People need to understand that to get things, other things have to be given up. Also, we have to stop policing other countries: I think Saddam was closer to Hitler than many people realize, but a revolution from within would have been a much better way to have him removed than setting up an artificial government, which has kept us there and helped be another drain on our economy.

[IDBillzFan]

I think Saddam was closer to Hitler than many people realize, but a revolution from within would have been a much better way to have him removed than setting up an artificial government, which has kept us there and helped be another drain on our economy.

Was that even an option? I'm not asking to debate your argument, but rather out of curiosity. It was always my understanding that Hussein buried countless dissenters. If you don't have the guns, and they don't think twice about killing you if you dissent, was a revolution even possible? Correct or not, I liken it to Iran today. I see these people rioting and yelling and fighting and then...nothing. Is that because the resistance is isolated, or is it something more gruesome we just don't know about? While the justification for the war in Iraq will be discussed for years, there's a part of me who saw all those mass graves uncovered and thought "At the very least, we're putting an end to THAT!"

 

So I wonder if the people of Iraq could have ever revolted. I'm just not sure.

[DC Tom]

Was that even an option? I'm not asking to debate your argument, but rather out of curiosity. It was always my understanding that Hussein buried countless dissenters. If you don't have the guns, and they don't think twice about killing you if you dissent, was a revolution even possible? Correct or not, I liken it to Iran today. I see these people rioting and yelling and fighting and then...nothing. Is that because the resistance is isolated, or is it something more gruesome we just don't know about? While the justification for the war in Iraq will be discussed for years, there's a part of me who saw all those mass graves uncovered and thought "At the very least, we're putting an end to THAT!"

 

So I wonder if the people of Iraq could have ever revolted. I'm just not sure.

 

Not really. No one liked the guy, obviously, and there were more than a few opportunists who'd take the chance if offered. But Saddam kept his senior people as uninformed, divided, and incommunicado as he possibly could, and killed the rest, meaning an organized revolution could never really get off the ground.

 

The Iraqi people themselves may have, if things got bad enough...but probably not (again, no one to organize around), and it would have been bloody as hell if they did. Best one could have hoped for from an internal revolt was probably an assassination, purge, and truly nasty civil war.

[Magox]

What I find interesting at first blush is that Obama has basically taken everything that could possibly cause a battle, and stripped it out of both bills, and put together a particularly bland proposal. It's a little like sitting down with a caterer to plan a wedding reception, looking at the menu and saying "Well, can't have fish because of Uncle Joe. And we can't have beef because of Aunt Suzie. And we can't have corn because of Cousin Bettie." And having the caterer say "Okay, so we've narrowed the menu down to water, unsalted Saltines and a Ho-Ho." In other words, what started out as a plan has turned into a compromise that doesn't seem to do anything that was supposed to be part of the plan.

 

What it seems to do is simply squeeze the insurance providers out of the market over a period of time, give subsidized benefits to the poor, and tax the living crap out of small businesses and the over $250K crowd to pay for it.

 

The one thing the article does point out is the cleverness of the WH to stage a meeting for Thursday to discuss health care reform , put this plan out on Monday, and then say to the GOP "Ummm, we brought our plan, where is yours?" Pretty smart way to make the GOP look stupid, but in the process, I don't see anyone listening to the majority of Americans in terms of what they want. Just idiots jockeying to not look bad on Thursday.

 

I have no basis to say this, but I fear Thursday is going to make our country look really, really stupid on a worldwide scale. I'm not sure why. It's that feeling you get when you know your co-workers are about to meet your weird Uncle Mortimer.

 

You are absolutely correct, this proposed bill takes the worst/most popular from both the house an Senate Bills. It includes more taxes, increases the scope of subsidies which in turn inflates the size of the entitlement program and somehow manages to have less cost control than the Senate Bill by eliminating the excise tax til 2018, which of course is a special-interest favor for the Unions, and anyone with at least half a brain knows that this will never get implemented. All one has to do is look at the "Doc" fix provision and see that they never implement unpopular pieces of legislation, even though it would reduce costs.

 

Then he wants to create a national overseer and regulator to determine if price increases are justified. Can anyone say populist measure? Ummm, Mr. President, we already have insurance commissioners in all 50 states that regulate and determine if premium increases are justified or not.

 

So what is the purpose of having a national regulator who could force health insurance companies to lower their premiums are nullify their price increases? Is it mere shallow populism at it's best, or is it a price control attempt which inevitably would lead to national health care.

 

If you take away a company's ability to adjust pricing, then you certainly would reduce the choices available for clients, which in turn reduces the quality of care. I see this as a gambit to nationalized health care.

 

Back to the subsidies, according to the presidents plan, those who ear 400% above the poverty line qualify for federal subsidies, to put things into context, a family of four that makes $96,000 a year qualifies. Wow!! Does anyone really believe that this wouldn't be just the beginning? It's just a matter of time before the scope of the subsidies would be increased.

 

What gets me more than anything is that in a time where we should be looking to reform S.S and Medicare, two massive entitlement programs that are set to overburden our economy, we are not only looking to add another new entitlement program but the president wants to increase the size of the plans that have already been proposed.

[IDBillzFan]

You are absolutely correct, this proposed bill takes the worst/most popular from both the house an Senate Bills. It includes more taxes, increases the scope of subsidies which in turn inflates the size of the entitlement program and somehow manages to have less cost control than the Senate Bill by eliminating the excise tax til 2018, which of course is a special-interest favor for the Unions, and anyone with at least half a brain knows that this will never get implemented. All one has to do is look at the "Doc" fix provision and see that they never implement unpopular pieces of legislation, even though it would reduce costs.

Something being pointed out today that will likely be brought up on Thursday: what Obama put forth yesterday is not a bill. It's a plan. As I understand it, in its current state, it could not be presented for a vote anywhere. So it's not Obama's Bill, as is being reported, but rather a really, really, really big copy/paste document.

 

Not to mention that the CBO stated there is nowhere near enough information to score it.

 

But, y'know, maybe if they just explain it to us one more time, the plan will make sense.

[Doc]

So if 51 Senators foist this on the country, when the majority of 300M people don't want it, doesn't that constitute grounds for a new revolutionary war? It's obvious that the threat of losing their jobs isn't enough. Perhaps the threat level need to be elevated?

[Adam]

Not really. No one liked the guy, obviously, and there were more than a few opportunists who'd take the chance if offered. But Saddam kept his senior people as uninformed, divided, and incommunicado as he possibly could, and killed the rest, meaning an organized revolution could never really get off the ground.

 

The Iraqi people themselves may have, if things got bad enough...but probably not (again, no one to organize around), and it would have been bloody as hell if they did. Best one could have hoped for from an internal revolt was probably an assassination, purge, and truly nasty civil war.

The problem with going in and doing it for them is obvious- they never can fend for themselves. Now, I do feel horrible about what Sadaam did- he is one of the most despicable people in history- but they eventually would have risen up against him. Eventually the capability is developed to do this when the oppression reaches the breaking point. If this happened, they would have set up a proper government and been ready to defend themselves. I am sure we had good intentions, but may have caused future pain for the Iraqi's by doing it for them.

 

You are absolutely correct, this proposed bill takes the worst/most popular from both the house an Senate Bills. It includes more taxes, increases the scope of subsidies which in turn inflates the size of the entitlement program and somehow manages to have less cost control than the Senate Bill by eliminating the excise tax til 2018, which of course is a special-interest favor for the Unions, and anyone with at least half a brain knows that this will never get implemented. All one has to do is look at the "Doc" fix provision and see that they never implement unpopular pieces of legislation, even though it would reduce costs.

Unfortunately, Americans want their government to do what is popular instead of what is good. Been that way for a long time. Its time to stop blaming the politicians for this and for the american people to start looking in the mirror to see the real problem

[Magox]

Unfortunately, Americans want their government to do what is popular instead of what is good. Been that way for a long time. Its time to stop blaming the politicians for this and for the american people to start looking in the mirror to see the real problem

No offense Adam, but you are constantly filled with empty rhetoric. The most productive thing we can do is vote for the person who we believe best represents our values, albeit many times the pool of candidates is awfully shallow, but none the less this is where our voice counts most. So, blaming politicians and voicing our disdain and concern is the best way to hold these elected officials accountable. So, if anything, now is the time to blame politicians more than ever and vote the bums out.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This sounds good in theory, and is sure to win public support, but the reality is that it won't change a damn thing when it comes to pricing. People were outraged of the new increases in premiums by Blue Cross in California last week. It did seem odd that they would be doing this, specially at this time when the Health Reform meeting was to take place. However, I read a few pieces on it, and it made sense why the increases had to take place.

 

In short, many people in California had to drop their insurance because of the tough economy. So what happened was that alot of healthy people dropped out of the risk pool, which of course would lead to higher premiums.

 

And Blue Cross is NONPROFIT.

[Adam]

No offense Adam, but you are constantly filled with empty rhetoric. The most productive thing we can do is vote for the person who we believe best represents our values, albeit many times the pool of candidates is awfully shallow, but none the less this is where our voice counts most. So, blaming politicians and voicing our disdain and concern is the best way to hold these elected officials accountable. So, if anything, now is the time to blame politicians more than ever and vote the bums out.

Most people don't vote for the candidate that best represents them. Most Americans are too stupid for this- they limit themselves to two candidates and believe everything they are spoonfed about there ONLY being two candidates. Then they just blame the president for everything that follows, instead of looking at the entire government as a whole.

 

People continually elect people to tell them what they want to hear, and do what is easy.

 

Empty rhetoric? "Love it or leave it" and "America is the best thing since sliced bread" and "Us good, Them bad" is empty rhetoric, and by the way, a lot more stupid than patriotic. True patriots always challenge the system- thats what built this country and made it great

[Magox]

Most people don't vote for the candidate that best represents them. Most Americans are too stupid for this- they limit themselves to two candidates and believe everything they are spoonfed about there ONLY being two candidates. Then they just blame the president for everything that follows, instead of looking at the entire government as a whole.

 

People continually elect people to tell them what they want to hear, and do what is easy.

 

Empty rhetoric? "Love it or leave it" and "America is the best thing since sliced bread" and "Us good, Them bad" is empty rhetoric, and by the way, a lot more stupid than patriotic. True patriots always challenge the system- thats what built this country and made it great

I disagree, you don't "challenge" the system with veiled comments, you "challenge" the system by loudly voicing your concerns and casting your vote.

[DC Tom]

I disagree, you don't "challenge" the system with veiled comments, you "challenge" the system by loudly voicing your concerns and casting your vote.

 

Unless you're a private pilot...

[Adam]

I disagree, you don't "challenge" the system with veiled comments, you "challenge" the system by loudly voicing your concerns and casting your vote.

Absolutely- but you don't limit yourself to just the romper room parties. I find the democrats and republicans to be highly unamerican. Unfortunately the Tea Party will soon be absorbed into the republican party and will lose their voice

[Magox]

Unless you're a private pilot...

Oh Come on! It's the freaking IRS, they had it coming

[Magox]

White House Health Insurance Summit agenda.

 

By the looks of it, the White House health reform summit has been designed to preserve President Obama's home court advantage. The president, Vice President Biden and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will get the first word on every topic during Thursday's meeting.

 

Negotiating the meeting's logistics likely made My Big Fat Greek Wedding look like an elementary school field trip.

 

The agenda:

 

1. Discussion:

 

a. The President will offer opening comments, followed by Republican and Democratic Members chosen by their colleagues.

 

b. They’ll then move to discussions around four themes:

 

i. Controlling costs – introduced by the President

 

ii. Insurance reforms – introduced by Secretary Sebelius

 

iii. Reducing the deficit – introduced by the Vice President

 

iv. Expanding coverage – introduced by the President

 

2. Logistics

 

a. Participants will be seated at tables in a hollow square setup. They’ll be identified with name cards.

 

b. There will be a leadership staff walk-through on Wednesday afternoon.

 

3. Timing

 

a. The meeting will begin at 10:00 am and run until about 4:00 pm.

 

b. There will be a break for lunch. Buffet lunch will be provided for guests.

 

4. Attendance

 

a. Not all participants have been named by leadership. We’ll make the full list available as soon as it’s final.

 

What a freaking joke