Magox Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 That urgency has ZERO to do with whether or not the deficit problem is really Medicare/Medicaid, which is what we were talking about. I don't know what we are arguing here, what I am saying is that the urgency Obama has for this has to do with his popularity ratings. It is not going to make or break this economy if the Health care plan goes through tomorrow or a year from now. That's what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Dude, really? REALLY? You're going to add a whole new arm of the Federal government and NOT increase the deficit? Wow, and here I thought unicorns were fake... If you thought that post was funny, then take a look at this one: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...91251&st=80 post #89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Do you want to bet me $1000 right now that when the Health Care plan is passed, the CBO is going to grade it, and say it's not deficit neutral, but that it raises the deficit substantially? You think you're pretty smart, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 First the plan as is, is not going to cover illegal aliens, despite erroneous reports. As of now, it will cover 97% of all Americans, so 10 million or so people won't be covered and most of the illegal aliens won't be either. Second, the Health Care plan is NOT going to increase the deficit. That is one of two things Obama has insisted on. The House bill people are griping about has already been changed, and I will bet anyone when the FINAL plan finally comes out and the President signs it, the CBO will have graded it pretty much deficit neutral. In short, it will cost the government some money in the short term, it will save it some in the long term, and a combination of provider cuts and the tax payers will pay for the rest. That's the 1 trillion Health Care plan. There are several other things that have to happen whether we get a Health Care plan passed or not. Medicare and Medicaid have to be fixed. If there were no plan at all, 90% of the problem with the deficit would still be the same. There are a TON of things in the plans that are designed to bring the Medicare/Medicare costs down in the long term. Some may work great, some may not help. it's impossible for anyone to grade them with any certainty of how much it will help. A big hurdle was passed two days ago that helps it a lot (people it stops the Congress from making medical decisions). A TON more have to be done to fix the broken system regardless of what the Health Care plan does or doesn't do, exists or doesn't exists. The administration and both Houses and industry experts have been working on that and not getting very far for decades. That's one of the reasons for Obama's urgency. Two things... First, he lied about the urgency of the so-called "stimulus" bill. A 700 billion dollar spending bill of which only 7 percent has been spent with zero stimulation effect to the average American. Where are all the jobs that were promised? Why did almost three million people lose their jobs AFTER it was passed? Second, it's only because of the blow back from the original bloated health care bill drafted in the house that Obama is willing to give it more time to discuss changes. He wanted to sign this thing at the beginning of August! Given that and how the rushed massive stimulus bill went down (one which no one that voted for it read), it's crystal clear to most Americans that he didn't give a crap about what was in it or how it would effect everyone's health care or even what the long term effects would be on the deficit. It's only after the blow back that he's willing to make changes. That's not leadership, that's being lazy. The chosen one likes to do two things, talk and be fawned over. Not actual "sit behind a desk" real work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Dude, really? REALLY? You're going to add a whole new arm of the Federal government and NOT increase the deficit? Wow, and here I thought unicorns were fake... Many of the changes in the plan are 2 - 5 - 10 years and longer. Most of it doesn't start for 3-4 years. Some changes are going to cost, some are going to save, some will "hopefully" save but we have no idea until they are instituted and work for years and years. But the only way we can reasonably estimate whether or not a bill is going to raise or lower the deficit is from the figures that will come out of the non-partisan CBO. They are not going to say the new Health Care plan raises the deficit. They are going to say it doesn't raise the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I don't know what we are arguing here, what I am saying is that the urgency Obama has for this has to do with his popularity ratings. It is not going to make or break this economy if the Health care plan goes through tomorrow or a year from now. That's what I'm saying. No, the reason he wants to get it down now is congressional elections happen in November of 2010, and he was hoping the Democratic majority would get this passed with no problem and without having it become a plank of Democratic incumbent congressional re-election platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 You think you're pretty smart, don't you? Apparently smarter than yourself. I obviously feel stronger in my convictions. I will repeat what I just posted to Joe in Macaroonvile... Many of the changes in the plan are 2 - 5 - 10 years and longer. Most of it doesn't start for 3-4 years. Some changes are going to cost, some are going to save, some will "hopefully" save but we have no idea until they are instituted and work for years and years. But the only way we can reasonably estimate whether or not a bill is going to raise or lower the deficit is from the figures that will come out of the non-partisan CBO. They are not going to say the new Health Care plan raises the deficit. They are going to say it doesn't raise the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Apparently smarter than yourself. I obviously feel stronger in my convictions. I will repeat what I just posted to Joe in Macaroonvile... I don't think you comprehend what we're trying to say to you. Healthcare isn't free. It costs money. Cuts may be made elsewhere, but that doesn't make national healthcare free. Regardless what the CBO labels it, and regardless of how many years it takes to have an effect, it will most certainly contribute to the deficit. I implore you to prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Second, it's only because of the blow back from the original bloated health care bill drafted in the house that Obama is willing to give it more time to discuss changes. He wanted to sign this thing at the beginning of August! Given that and how the rushed massive stimulus bill went down (one which no one that voted for it read), it's crystal clear to most Americans that he didn't give a crap about what was in it or how it would effect everyone's health care or even what the long term effects would be on the deficit. It's only after the blow back that he's willing to make changes. That's not leadership, that's being lazy. The chosen one likes to do two things, talk and be fawned over. Not actual "sit behind a desk" real work. You obviously don't have your facts right, so it's useless responding, but... There hasn't even been a bill to sign, nor would there or could there be. They aren't even close to having a bill he could sign. Not to mention that the House bill had stuff in it that he has said under no circumstance will he sign. So why would you say he wants to sign a bill in August? There are going to be at least five bills. What he wanted by August were TWO of them agreed upon, one in the house and one in the senate, neither of which he could sign. Then he wanted, and still wants, the two bills to be merged in congress in the fall, so he can sign it before the end of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Second, the Health Care plan is NOT going to increase the deficit. Because he's raising taxes and cutting a few other things? How about we just cut a few things and be 100% sure the deficit doesn't go up instead of wish and hope it doesn't go up--while also taking money out of people's pockets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 You obviously don't have your facts right, so it's useless responding, but... There hasn't even been a bill to sign, nor would there or could there be. They aren't even close to having a bill he could sign. Not to mention that the House bill had stuff in it that he has said under no circumstance will he sign. So why would you say he wants to sign a bill in August? There are going to be at least five bills. What he wanted by August were TWO of them agreed upon, one in the house and one in the senate, neither of which he could sign. Then he wanted, and still wants, the two bills to be merged in congress in the fall, so he can sign it before the end of the year. Yeah, come on 1billsfan, you idiot. Get your facts straight, he isn't going to turn our country into communist Russia until at least mid October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I don't think you comprehend what we're trying to say to you. Healthcare isn't free. It costs money. Cuts may be made elsewhere, but that doesn't make national healthcare free. Regardless what the CBO labels it, and regardless of how many years it takes to have an effect, it will most certainly contribute to the deficit. I implore you to prove otherwise. I fully understand what you're saying, I am giving you reasons and data and authorities that say you're not right. Your response is "it will, it has to" even though the people that work on these things and know this stuff disagree. I am going to believe them. There are enormous wastes in the Health Care system. Everyone agrees with that. It's a 2.5 trillion dollar a year industry. I don't think there is anyone that doesn't think we can save huge percentages of the cost of Health Care, some of which are very simple changes. These can easily outweighing the additional cost, especially to the government, when the additional costs as they are will be funded by private business and private taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Is the CBO infallible when making predictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 No, the reason he wants to get it down now is congressional elections happen in November of 2010, and he was hoping the Democratic majority would get this passed with no problem and without having it become a plank of Democratic incumbent congressional re-election platforms. Public support is waning, the time is now for him, every day that passes, it makes it that much more difficult to follow through with the administration's agenda, specially considering the economy. Of course, if the economy appears to be improving, I imagine his popularity ratings will rise, and the green chutes and pink farts that he is promising will be believed and passage of the Health Care Reform would become that much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Many of the changes in the plan are 2 - 5 - 10 years and longer. Most of it doesn't start for 3-4 years. Some changes are going to cost, some are going to save, some will "hopefully" save but we have no idea until they are instituted and work for years and years. But the only way we can reasonably estimate whether or not a bill is going to raise or lower the deficit is from the figures that will come out of the non-partisan CBO. They are not going to say the new Health Care plan raises the deficit. They are going to say it doesn't raise the deficit. Non partisan CBO? You mean before or after Elmendorf was had his fitting for cement shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Because he's raising taxes and cutting a few other things? How about we just cut a few things and be 100% sure the deficit doesn't go up instead of wish and hope it doesn't go up--while also taking money out of people's pockets? I think it's a wish of the people, as well as the government, as well as the industry, that (most) all Americans get affordable health care. I saw an excellent interview on Charlie Rose last night with the head of the Mayo Clinic who has a terrific perspective on the real problems and possible solutions. He thinks it's very doable, but it's going to take some time. Decades. But we need to start now. He says there are a lot of specific and proven ways to get a lot better care for a lot less money, with both the patients and the doctors/nurses happier. It's a rethinking of how we provide care in the country. But why wouldn't we want to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Non partisan CBO? You mean before or after Elmendorf was had his fitting for cement shoes. They're as non-partisan as we have, and I have seen him take a lot of shots at the Obama administration already. Have a better arbiter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 They're as non-partisan as we have, and I have seen him take a lot of shots at the Obama administration already. Have a better arbiter? Yeah, any guy who doesn't get a beat down in the Oval Office after disagreeing with the President. How dare he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 He says there are a lot of specific and proven ways to get a lot better care for a lot less money, with both the patients and the doctors/nurses happier. It's a rethinking of how we provide care in the country. But why wouldn't we want to do that? Just a hunch, were his proposals even in the same stratosphere as the Congressional plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Please stop and don't tempt the Kraken. If they intend for government supplied universal healthcare to cost less - take them at their word. It will cost less. Then again, a Federal panel of Dr. Kervorkian disciples will decide that the elderly cost to much to maintain - so they'll be given two aspirin a day for whatever ails them. The Liberal Dems haven't been this excited since food and gas rationing stamps were the norm during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts